Non-philosophy geeks can safely ignore this post. It arises from a common discussion I have with someone, who sometimes brings it up in contexts where I have argued it was inappropriate.  This is primarily an attempt to clarify my own interpretation of the phrase, to see if it reconciles with hers.

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.

--Rush, "Free Will"

What is this lyric saying? Let us analyze an example of where someone may not have made a "decision", but has still made a "choice." The most obvious one is belief in God. Here, there are four distinct choices that one is required to make when faced with the possibility of a God:

1. Theism - Positive affirmation of the existence of a God. You have chosen to believe.
2. Atheism - Affirmation of the non-existence of a God. You have chosen to disbelieve.
3. Strong Agnosticism/Skepticism - You have chosen to believe that the existence of a God is unknowable.
4. Weak Agnosticism - You have chosen not to decide whether or not you believe a God exists.

The last item, what I call "weak" agnosticism, is the point of contention in the Rush song. There are those who deny that inaction is a form of action - that state that passivity is categorically separate from action. I believe (and I first read this in Sartre, though Ayn Rand and Rush have both affirmed it in other ways) that conscious passivity actually constitutes a form of action - a choice not to act.¹ One can thusly be held to be responsible (ethically and practically) for that lack of action.  For example, since they stayed in New Orleans when it was possible to leave, New Orleanians can be said to be at least partially responsible for any harm they suffered due to the flood (since the possibility of flooding was well-known).  Of course, if every region in the world were equally prone to unavoidable flooding, then such passivity could not constitute a choice - outside of the choice of whether to kill one's self before the flood did.

I don't think this should really be a particularly controversial position, but let me know your thoughts.

¹Unconscious passivity must, of course, be analyzed separately, since in it there is no possibility of action; we are only interested in those cases where it is possible (physically and psychically - eg, one is not encased in carbonite, and one is aware of the possible action) for one to act and one does not.

Tags: philosophy, religion
Current Mood: thoughtful

Let's do a non-political post for once in a great while, shall we?  Religion is SO much more controversial.

So life has been interesting lately.  I have been playing a lot of WoW, hanging out with the girl, going to the numerous birthday parties, and attending the conventions (well, one). A couple of months ago I visited both a Lutheran church and a Quaker meeting for the first time, and found both to be rather equally odd (though not unpleasant) experiences.  I think I'd like to speak on that topic now, even if it is a bit late...

So the Lutheran church was an unusual experience for precisely the opposite reasons that the Quaker meeting was an unusual experience.  Their methods of worship seem to me to be quite formal, which is something I am not used to coming from a contemporary evangelical background.  There was a priest in formal robes who gave a liturgy, with the congregation reading responses back to him.  There were traditional hymns, with an organ.  They applied close communion - effectively meaning I was asked politely not to partake, as a non-member of the church.  That was strange enough to someone whose church gives communion to everyone - but as well, communion was actually served to members at the front of the church, one at a time, and was served directly by the priests (in my church, it is passed around on trays - just like the offering).  The church was also much smaller than I am used to, there being only about 40 people there.  The priest individually greeted everyone before the service.  My church generally seats hundreds, and I bet Pastor Bob would be lucky to remember a quarter of their names.  Everyone was very friendly and welcoming, however, and the churchgoers seemed just as normal as any other church I've been to - particularly notable, they all still enjoyed their coffee after the service.

So how was the Quaker meeting unusual for the exact opposite reasons?  Almost utter lack of formality.  There were no songs, no priests (no teachers of any kind, except the "First Day School" teacher for the children), no sermon, no communion - not even any Bible readings.  A Quaker meeting consists of the church sitting in a "circle" in a room (there were maybe 30 or 40 people at the one I attended), in silence and contemplation.  Two people spoke during the meeting, standing when they felt compelled to and speaking about whatever they were compelled to speak about.  One spoke about the problems of the war (Quakers are radical pacifists), and I'm afraid I don't remember the other.  After the hour of contemplation, someone's wristwatch beeped softly and everyone opened their eyes and smiled.  An elder went over some current church events, the children from First Day school presented some drawings they had done in the other room (they were there for the first 15 minutes or so, and were brought out by the teacher for the rest of the meeting).  Now let me tell you, the entire experience was as alien to me as it apparently was to Voltaire when he described them in his letters (1, 2, 3, 4). To someone who has grown up having the Bible presented before the congregation by a figure in authority, it was both startling and I must admit somewhat refreshing. In the end, though, the Quakers seemed just like more normal Christians - friendly and welcoming, and they did indeed enjoy their coffee (it was quite good, too).

Well, I doubt I will be switching churches any time soon, to either denomination.  There are things about both methods of worthip that bother me.  I chafe against the formalism of the Lutherans, and I do not much like the idea of close communion (I also do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation of the Eucharist). Lord help me (hah!) if I ever actually attend a Catholic service.  However, I also value having some clear teachers (and teaching!) in church, which of course the Quakers object to (I also am not a radical pacifist - I am Dovish at best, but not always).  Thusly, my current church seems like the best option for me still.  Now if only I could wake up early enough on sundays to attend...

Well, that WAS going to be a personal post, but it devolved into yet another philosophical rant.  Oh well.  You kids have fun.

Oh, and please, Save Toby.

Tags: religion

I feel like making a related addition to that list of quotes I posted a while back.  It is from the Bible - the book of 1 Samuel, chapter 8.

Now, it doesn't matter if you're a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim) or not, because this chapter is not religious in nature; it is just an ancient story of a man and his people.  I'm quoting the chapter in it's entirety, so that it can't be said I'm taking it out of context.  As background for the story:  The Israelites at the time had no king.  They had just revolted against the oppression of the Phillistines who had conquered them, and after many losses (including the loss of the ark of the covenant for 23 years) they finally won autonomy once more.  Samuel was a "judge", which made him a leader for the Israelites, but not a king; judges resolved disputes between people, they interpreted God's law, but they did not have executive power over armies or people.  Israelite society was otherwise quite individualistic and relatively anarchistic in that respect.  This is the setting into which this chapter begins.

( 1 Samuel 18 )

Tags: history, politics, religion
Current Mood: thoughtful