Right out of George Orwell's 1984, George Bush comes up with another Orwellian corker: torture is no longer torture; it's an "alternative set of procedures".Bush is a coward —afraid to call torture what it is: torture. Bush talks about torture obliquely, in language reminiscent of his state of the union address of 2003 when he talked about the treatment and, quite possibly, the deliberate murder, of thousands of detainees presumably captured in Afghanistan. At the time, Bush said:
"Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way —they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies".Bush is back in that newspeak mode referring not to a "different fate" (murder?) but calling torture an "alternative set of procedures".—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used--I think you understand why--if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.In other words: torture! Let me address the following comment directly to George W. Bush. NO, Bush, torture procedures DO NOT comply with our laws, our constitution, or our treaty obligations. In fact, torture itself blatantly violates ALL of the above. Torture is repugnant to American values, decency, morality and civilization. Civilized nations do not torture. Legitimate administrations do not torture. Barbaric, cruel nations do. Torture, which you have not the courage to call by name, is an offense, an affront to our very basic "American" values.—George W. Bush, Text of President Bush's speech, September 07, 2006
As Spencer Ackerman wrote, Bush continues to exploit the ignorance of the American people. The truth of the matter is this: there is no need to torture anyone; nor is it effective. Intelligence gathered by torture is notoriously inaccurate and often misleading. As Bush said of evil, I say of Bush's un-American program of torture: if it is not evil then what is?
Bush wants to continue his program of torture and wants the congress to change the laws so that he can. Bush had already broken the law; his torture program was denounced by a federal court. In the face of laws, morality, and American values, Bush urges Congress to pass a terrorist surveillance act. It will give Bush the authority he wants to try what Bush expects us to believe are "al-Qaeda detainees" currently held in secret CIA facilities throughout Eastern Europe. The existence of this gulag archipelago was denied vociferously but now it is openly admitted because Bush holds out hope for an ex post facto law. Bush had to admit his crime but only because it was the only way he could get congress to make legal the crimes he's already committed. I read the Constitution. Congress has not the power to pass ex post facto laws of any sort.
When Bush is not playing Orwellian language games to hide the truth, he is telling bald faced lies:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.Here's yet another corker from the same speech:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.And this absurdity from his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September, 2002:
And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.Events have proven those statements untrue. Bush found it necessary to link Iraq with terrorism for several reasons. Members of his own administration had already identified Al Qaeda as responsible for 911. From the get go, Bush wanted to attack Iraq where the terrorists weren't; he needed to figure out a way to pin 911 on Saddam. It was a problem for Bush that almost no terrorists exist in the United States. [See: Foreign Affairs, Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?, John Mueller] Bush needed a fall guy!—George W. Bush, UN Speech
At last, even members of Congress will allow that Bush deliberately hoaxed the Congress and the public. If this is not treasonable and impeachable, what is? Must Bush solicit oral sex that this nation might be saved two more years in which Bush wages dangerous, heedless, reckless war upon the entire world?
At last, Bush has employed every evil to achieve his goal of global domination. Most pernicious among these evils is the right wing debasement of language to obscure, to distort, to pervert. No one can be free when language is defiled. Language is liberty.
The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.—William Hazlett, 1778
Because Bush exploits fear with lies, his entire administration has taken on an hysterical tinge of late, born, no doubt, of Bush's own knowledge that he is a fraud.Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: W.Va. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In PowerSept. 9, 2006
(CBS) When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.
Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks."Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.
But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"
Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"
In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on DemocratsBy Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; Page A01Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads. ...
We best observe the anniversary of 911 by reflecting upon the fraudulent nature of Bush's various "wars" —his war of deception, distraction, and Orwellian legerdemain. Just how great is the so-called terrorist threat? I am confident that you will find many authoritative sources for the following fact: your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are about point 0000001%. And we gave up our freedom for that?Just in time for elections, Bush campaigns on fear
September 10, 2006BY MONROE ANDERSON
Five years after the 9/11 tragedy, the kingpin of Abraham Lincoln's party is still dead set on fooling most of the people most of the time.
President Bush and his chorus of Republican pols, Cabinet members and neo-con sycophants would have us believe we're safer or, depending on political expediencies, not that safe. According to the president's pre-9/11 anniversary speeches on the progress of the war on terror, we're safer than we were before the attacks but not yet safe enough to steer clear of his failed stay-the-course strategy. As Bush explains it, al-Qaeda's leadership is decimated but remains dangerous enough to destroy the entire civilized world.
There he goes again. ...
The Existentialist Cowboy
Terror
Bush
Iraq
Endless War
28 comments:
I really liked your analysis of the Bush-Torture issue. It makes me made that our country is letting him do these things. I also thought you might like a piece I found on another blog.
First, according to Ron Suskind, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a retarded child. (emphasis mine) Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002. Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know.
Russ wrote: the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was.
Excellent point and strikes at the very heart of Bush's nexus of lies and bullshit!
Fuzzflash wrote: Bush is copybook corporate psychopath in denial. He is America’s greatest clear and present danger because his handler’s cannot afford the scrutiny that losing control of Congress will bring. They will do whatever it takes to “win” the Mid Terms.
And Bush becomes more dangerous as his numbers fall. As to be expected from you, your comments are right on target —truth couched with barbed wit! Keep up the great work, Fuzzflash. You always brighten up this forum.
SOP of the CIA and other like-type organizations has been for the past several years to ignore retrieved data from torture victims. It ultimately pans out as false, or contrived, certainly unreliable. Yet this administration not only lies about the traditional laws that regulate torture in our nation, they have also ignored the consistent fact of its meager value in the effort of protecting the nation. But, when the whole of their structure is based on a lie and corrupted pretense, what are a few more deceptions added to the pot?
Benmerc, I think the program of torture originated with Bush. He did not merely sign off on it. Additionally, I think he supports torture because he likes it —pervert that he is! And, you are correct, torture is most certainly the worst method of getting reliable information.
Len,
I think I meant traditional laws that regulate interrogation, (not torture as I originally stated) And you are correct, Bush certainly has originated (within our official realm) what is known to most of the world as a practice within interrogation known as torture. I could not agree more, yeah he looks like the type that blew up small animals with fire crackers on a regular basis when he was a kid, just has that look about him…I could be wrong… ( some studies show many of those type individuals go on to be violent offenders and even serial killers) Hmmmm…
benmerc, Bush has, in fact, been called a serial killer by proxy. And you are most certainly correct: the CIA knows that torture doesn't work. Bush is most certainly personally responsible for institutionalizing torture.
Cheney's contribution to the campaign thus far has been the sardonic inference that, since there have been no attacks in 5 years, the Bushco Security Plan is a success. As another contributor on the Carpetbagger pointed out, how long was it between the original attack on the WTC, and the one that took both down?
Only the whole Clinton administration. Did that mean his security policies were a rousing success as well?
The Dick is trying to have it both ways. If we've won —as he implies —then give us our freedom back! Cheney will never dare to declare a complete success.
That first attack was on February 1993 just 30 days after Clinton was sworn in. And I don't even think that Clinton would use Cheney's argument. Cheney's argument is like the man who dowses his New Rochelle lawn with talcum powder daily to keep elephants away. It must surely work!
Did someone say cornered rat? The idea that they become more dangerous when they contemplate losing power, or specifically a congress with subpoena powers, is scary. Backs against the wall, no way out, fight or flight with flight denied. All the cliches apply.
I agree with Fuzzflash's assessment of Vidal. Vidal, Zinn, And Dean are must reads these days.
Sadbuttrue, cornered rat is a good analogy. I like cornered sewer rat even better. Indeed, the next couple of months are scary indeed. The stakes are as high as any drama by Shakespeare. A GOP loss could eventually lead to Bush sitting in a dock charged wtih capital crimes.
There's an outstanding but lengthy series of articles by Mark Levey entitled "The Crimes of 9/11" for anyone interested that covers the whole range of 9/11 intelligence failures. (link)
damien, great link! Here's the part that should people all over the world cause to rethink the official version of events:
Three thousand people died in what was possibly, at high levels of the US Government, the most widely anticipated mass murder in American history.
My own conclusion is that —of course —the Bush administration had fairly precise fore-knowledge of 911. The only question is how much and to what degree did our own government aid and abet? Dick Cheney was in charge of "exercises" that fateful day. He was in a perfect position to order all manner of things. What did he, in fact, order?
I'm glad you read it Fuzzflash and Len. I've only gotten through parts of it. There's also a shorter story of the Bush intelligence fiasco here for those a bit pressed for time. I'm still fighting The Oz down here. It's been a living nightmare. We've been getting two or three major editorials a week plus feature articles from Norman Podhoretz and Christopher Hitchens (you get the idea). Apparently -
* the war in Iraq is going swimmingly
* attacking Iran is a great idea and we should do it now
* the Israeli's are freedom fighters and the Lebanese and Palestinians are terrorists
* 9/11 was carried out solely by Osama bin Laden
* 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all nuts and driven by blind Bush hatred.
* we need fewer civil liberties in the war on terror
* Georg Bush is a great guy
* anyone who disagrees is not only a Leftie, but a Nazi and a terrorist supporter.
* no correspondance will be entered into on any of the above matters.
It's wall to wall. Here's some quotes:
What is most remarkable in all this is the way anti-Semitism has re-emerged as a driving force in geopolitics. Like Adolf Hitler before them, radical Islamists have resurrected ancient suspicions and hatreds of Judaism as a way to distract the world from their own fascist ends....Even old and discredited Nazi propaganda, which held that Jews were a secret and malign influence controlling banking and politics, has been resurrected (although more subtly) by those who claim that Israeli lobby groups have too much power to influence policy and stifle debate.
That last reference is, of course, to Stephen M.Walt and John J.Mearsheimer, but the message from The Oz was "We don't want anyone to question the US plans for regime change in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. So we'll just label two respected, professional academics as Nazis - and we won't mention even their names." How's that for saving your readers the bother of forming their own opinions!
Chris Hitchens came on our quality current affairs program Lateline two days ago and argued that (a) Saddam was in league with Osama (b) Saddam was developing nuclear weapons (c) the Niger documents were real(!)I wasn't able to get to the exit in time so I had to quickly choke myself into unconsciousness in order to survive. But it was a close call.
The Oz opened up the letters page following a particularly heavy thrashing of 9/11 critics. But they were selective about what they published. They published one of my letters (which was bullshit) and they refused another (which was true). (link)
The letter they wouldn't publish I posted at MediaWatch, part of our govt run ABC network that is always accused of being Left wing (it's actually just professional and unbiased). That's a nice place for it because a lot of the key Aussie media and political players follow this site. (link)
Like everybody here, I just don't have the time to drag public consciousness back to something resembling decency and intelligence. I can't see any difference between our current media and those Kitchener posters calling on young Brits to slaughter themselves all over Flanders. Political pornography. Yossarian got it right...we've just got to wait until a few more of them get killed or injured and then they'll all be ok. Pity about all the damage.
Sorry, that last MediaWatch link should be (link)- I wrote as Kenj.
That's a completely wonderful story Fuzzflash. Thank you so much. Your father sounds like such a wonderful man. I wouldn't be too quick with the 'bog Irish' epithet, mate. You're talking to convict stock here (with a great English mother). I'm not as erudite as some but there must be some reason why I find some war books compelling. I tend to read the same good ones over and over. Gulag Archipelago remains my favourite (both volumes!) I've been through several copies of each because the pages keep falling out. I am stunned by Solzhenitsyn's perfect blending of history, the fragility of social norms, the descriptions, the whole bit. Underpinning every sentence is a white hot understanding that every action is inherently moral (in the deeper sense); and how necessary it is for society to fight hard to preserve good faith with ourselves, with others and our civic institutions. In long works you expect passages of boredom, but I have yet to find a phrase of his that doesn't tear down the blinkers. He's unbelievable.
My other favourites are Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust, Catch 22 and All Quiet on the Western Front. I don't know why I should find these books so appealing as I have never been to war and never want to (others in my family have had their share in WW2 and Vietnam). But I guess these profound books attack the way people so easily dehumanise others and the lesson from these writers has always been the same:"if you abuse your words and your ideas you are ripe to abuse others".
I guess that's why I feel pretty pissed off with the Iraq economic sanctions where cheap Western politicians could so easily sentence half a million people to death - so addicted to their own miserable self-importance they couldn't stand in the shoes of their victims. And as we know, Iraqi mothers love their children less than we do. So if their five year olds die from water-borne diseases because we ban chlorine imports they're supposed to be grateful that we were 'punishing Saddam'. What a load of crap!
And we have reminders here of WW1 - I think Canada is similar. Australia had a population of 8 million at WW1. I forget the actual numbers of dead and wounded, but on a per capita basis we had more casualties than any other nation taking part. Every small town in this country, miles from nowhere, has a stone obelisk with the names of 20 or so young men who went away and died. Every tiny town in the country. What a waste.
So I guess that's why I get a bit pissed off when our national paper starts talking about the VIRTUE(!) and DESIRABILITY (!) of bombing Iran. Makes me think the ancients had the right idea when they traded hostages. A few Murdoch editors, or their progeny, housed in Tehran nuclear sites would set their thinking straight. I was just reading the other day that the "war on terror" has cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth. You know, if they'd "bliss bombed" the Middle East with schools, hospitals and kindness it would have been cheaper and the American flag would have been welcomed across a continent. Instead they settled on the usual format of violence and lies. I hope we see some justice.
There are, of course, many happy things to enjoy, Fuzzflash. They form a part of my life and, I hope, yours too. Cheers.
Sorry, Fuzzflash, that was your grandfather. And he's still a wonderful man.
Wow, Damien, Fuzzflash, everyone! Your posts are a great reflection on our humanity.
Len, I think we need to think in simple "Bush Think" to understand this president. Bush is the president, and the president is the head of the executive branch of government. Well, what does the executive branch do? They execute, hee hee. So, in Bush's simple mind, he likely sees himself justly as the executioner. Thus, in simple terms torture and murder is his job, really, and all part of the whole executing, er executive branch. See? It's all okay in Bush Think.
Jen, your point is well-taken and understood. In fact, I agree with you about Bush think. But, on the other hand, thinking like Bush —even in order to understand him —is more dangerous than dropping acid. And, quite frankly, I no longer give a crap how Bush thinks. I just want to get his sorry butt into a jail cell where he can indulge his psychotic delusions without harming anyone until the executioner carries out a court mandated sentence.
Pam has an excellent article on her blog over at - musingsofaworkingmom@blogspot.com/index.html - entitled "Jesus camp"; I think you'd all find it extremely interesting. It outlines summer camps run by evangelicals with the stated intent of creating "God's soldiers" to influence future elections. These people care only about electing a president who will impose religious fundamentalism and turn the country into a Christian theocracy. They boast of how these kids will have liberals "shaking in their boots" when they grow up. This mini-documentary won some kind of fancy media award, but it chilled my blood to watch 6-to-8-year-olds holding their fists up while they shouted "righteous judges!!" in unison. Could "Seig Heil" be far away?
The thing is, if that were Islam, it would bring a scream of rage from Americans about religious propaganda and Nazi totalitarianism.
If you have a fast connection and one hour and twelve and a half minutes to spare, Greg Palast brings a very interesting and even chilling light on what has been going on.
Damien, you were so lucky to have a grandfather. All my grandparents were dead by the time I was born, so I have no idea what a grandfather or a grandmother feels like - which is something of a slight handicap when it comes to being a grandmother mysefl; I had no role model for the part, so I improvise as best I can. My father fought in WWI as well as in the Second Edition. This aged him considerably, but his spirits were sharp and high to the last moment of his life. Had he not gone so early, I would have heard his tales which were too hard for a child of four, and beyond a four-year old to grasp or understand. So I missed out on that too, apart from what my mother related to me, of course. I am always in subonscious quest for people who knew my father well who could add their anecdotes to my inner collection. Your grandfather's reaction, how well I can relate, though, imagining myself in his shoes. He correctly distilled it all into a few words, bestowing immense power and meaning to them by the image they evoke.
Forgive me if my posts seem incoherent - I am having the drunken feeling as well as the confusion and lack of concentration which are side-effects of the medicine I'm taking. So should I post weird stuff, or post uncharacteristically (boy, that one is hard to type!), please bear with me. Them side-effects should gradually go away, normally. :)
Mark, that stuff scares the crap out of me. As an atheist I cannot relate to how someone would suspend logic in order to swallow a myth that, to me, bears as much relationship to reality as the Green Lantern and Silver Surfer comics I read as a child. It scares me because it is so ineffably, unfathomably unknown. Then the fact of these people's willingness to completely submit their entire minds to someone else's judgement, another 'skill' I never possessed. One must remember that the first principle of faith is that of submission to authority. A few thoughts from those wiser and more eloquent than I;
"I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." -- Pascal
And finally, coming back to the theme of Len's original excellent post,
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. "
-- Claire Wolfe
Although frankly, I'm beginning to think that it's not too early at all.
To borrow from the incredibly comic Damien, I had to quickly choke myself into unconsciousness at the nauseating chumminess displayed between our Yakisoba-spined Foreign Minister Peter MacKay and that grotesque rubber troll Condoleezza Rice; Jeez, did you see that? To reconstitute a phraselet I haven't heard since the early 80's, make me lose it all.
When will these neocons get a clue and figure out that public displays of friendliness between them and another country are the kiss of death for that country? Christ, just send us a card, or something.
Yeah, that religious goose-stepping stuff scares me, too. But other commenters have pointed out (on that blog) that they had a strongly religious upbringing, and it felt relatively harmless at the time. I grew up in the United Church of Canada, and my mom made my sister and I go to Sunday School every week - I had 4 year-bars suspended from the church pin on the lapel of my blazer. Now I might go to church (and it doesn't matter which one) once every 3 years or so at Christmas, just because Midnight Mass feels seasonal. I remember bible stories as entertaining, with no particular lasting effect. I am all the way across town from religious.
Still, that's a long way from raising little fundamentalist zombies for the express purpose of keeping a hardcore religious conservative in the White House.
I guess coopting the will of a 6-year-old feels like the kind of fight these people can win. But I have to wonder what kind of parent would send their kid there.
Welcome back, Vierotchka; I hope you're feeling better.
sad...here is yet another great religion/reason quote.... (and one of my favs)
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other then human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit”….The Age of Reason, Part One by Thomas Paine…. 1794.
ps: The Pascal one is unfortunatly right on...but I enjoyed all you posted on the subject.
I remembered having read it a good while ago, it took me a long time to find it again - it has been removed from the website, but you can see Google's cached copy here: http://tinyurl.com/z2g2y. A most interesting thread, rich in links. Food for thought.
With regard to this issue of faiths and religions and their destructive effects when married to politicians, you might find these two links interesting: 1 (parts 2 and 3 haven't been posted yet), and 2 (the way to the second half is given there).
Sadbuttrue wrote: As an atheist I cannot relate to how someone would suspend logic in order to swallow a myth that, to me, bears as much relationship to reality as the Green Lantern and Silver Surfer comics I read as a child. It scares me because it is so ineffably, unfathomably unknown. Then the fact of these people's willingness to completely submit their entire minds to someone else's judgement, another 'skill' I never possessed.
Sadly, sad, people will believe whatever makes them feel good about themselves. That explains both Adolph Hitler and Ronald Reagan. For some time, it explained Bush, but, now that Bush disgusts our allies, embarrasses his own party, and vindicates his harshest critics, his days are numbered. Americans have not felt good about themselves for a long time now. I am of the opinion that, on the whole, they don't deserve to feel good about themselves. America may find redemption —but at what cost? In the meantime, I am not an atheist because I am of the opinion that "non-existence" cannot be proved. Similarly, I believe that "existence" is not proven logically; it is, rather, experienced ONLY empirically. We have confidence in this sense experience because we have confidence in our own existence —Descartes' cogito. The "existence" of God cannot be proven or demonstrated, but neither can his "non-existence". More precisely —the sentence: God does not exist is as meaningless as is the sentence God exists. And both are meaningless.
Science and logic deal only with attributes of things known to exist a posteriori. Logic deals only with the relationships of attributes. Kant posited a noumenal "plane" but nothing meaningful has ever been said about it —even by Kant. Likewise, neither logic (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) nor science (the Uncertainly Principle) can be said to be "complete" or capable of "completeness". Somewhere in the cracks of imperfect, incomplete knowledge, a God may exist, but, ironically, religious folk will be the last to know; and science will be forever unable to prove it one way or the other.
In the meantime, religious folk can only profess a "faith" for which there is no logical proof and no empirical evidence. How religion can presume, then, to impose a faith upon others is irrational —perhaps, a form of mass insanity. The rest of us must simply defend as best we can against the overwhelming majority of fanatics who would burn Giordano at the stake or Protestants who would draw and quarter Robert Southwell. Shakespeare would assess each side and write: "A plague o'both your houses!" Humanity will do well to learn to live with uncertainty if it is to live at all.
Nice ideas, Len:
In the meantime, I am not an atheist because I am of the opinion that "non-existence" cannot be proved. Similarly, I believe that "existence" is not proven logically; it is, rather, experienced ONLY empirically. We have confidence in this sense experience because we have confidence in our own existence —Descartes' cogito. The "existence" of God cannot be proven or demonstrated, but neither can his "non-existence". More precisely —the sentence: God does not exist is as meaningless as is the sentence God exists. And both are meaningless.
I recall a Buddhist scripture that recorded the Buddha discussing the faculty of sight with his students. It was variously suggested that the faculty of sight was located in our eyes (but this denied the necessity of the viewing object); next, that it was located in the object itself(but this denied the necessity of the viewer); finally, that it was located at some point in between the two. The Buddha dismissed this idea also (although I don't have his argument to hand).
But the discourse must have had some effect on his disciples because the scripture goes on..."and all at once their minds were open and they saw that they were as a bubble held in the hand of the universe, forever lost and forever saved."
You could almost say the Buddha was an existentialist. Did he know anything about cowboys?
"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." -- Bertrand Russell
If one thing could be said about Bertrand Russell, it is that he was well in the habit of thinking outside the box. It can also be said that in his later life he concentrated less on the theoretical and more on the practical, as it should be. I think the point you make in reference to Godel and Heisenberg was presupposed by Voltaire;
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." and expanded upon by Russell;
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." -- Bertrand Russell
Theologians speak disingenuously about the 'God-shaped hole' that exists in people's consciousness. It is really the desire for certainty; disastrously realized most often by submission to the local megalomaniac. The resulting 'mass insanity', certainty gained at the terrible cost of self-realization, has been the bane of man since the first recorded history. As you so succinctly conclude, Len.
Benmerc, the Thomas Paine quote was one of my favourites, in my quiver, but withheld for another time. As were several more, of course. Pieces to be played in the Glass Bead Game (Hermann Hesse) of ideas that is played nowhere better than here on the Existential Cowboy's front porch.
Post a Comment