Tucson Citizen.com
Freethought Arizona - Reason, Science, and Freedom of Expression

Does Religion Hurt Your Sex Life (Too?)?

by on Nov. 09, 2011, under Abortion, Arizona Families, Art & Culture, Biblical Inerrancy, Christian Self-Righteous Arrogance, Christianity, Clarity, Critical Thinking, Ethics, Faith, Fundamentalism, Gay Marriage, God & Bible, History, Logic, Mormonism, Reason, Religion, Sanity, Science, That's Life!, Willful Ignorance

This post comes to us from Jim Wilson:

Human sexuality and religion have a complex and, in my opinion, an often dysfunctional and paradoxical relationship. On one hand, I have heard leaders of the faithful speak of sexuality and sexual pleasures as gifts of God to be treasured, and gifts that do much to strengthen the bonds between individuals and serves as an outlet for expressions of affection. On the other hand, I have seen a strong tendency especially within the three big monotheistic religions to treat sex as something dirty and taboo that is to be valued primarily if not exclusively for its procreative purposes and otherwise demonized. This attitude is expressed in many forms including: opposition to contraception, opposition to sex outside of marriage, opposition to any relationship type other than strict monogamy, opposition to masturbation, opposition to medically accurate sex education (in favor of abstinence only), and opposition to homosexual or bisexual activity. 

I am of the opinion that people should be free to have whatever value systems and engage in whatever sexual behaviors they like, so long as this is done with the knowledge and consent of all who are impacted. If one wishes to hold the sex-negative values discussed in the paragraph above, that is fine with me, but I am of the opinion that many of them are not conducive to physical or mental health. 

We have strong sexual drives that are very much part of our biology, and gratifying them can be a source of great pleasure, connectedness with others and are in my opinion an important part of maturing. Denying these impulses strikes me as a means of promoting frustration, insecurity, anxiety and social difficulty. We live in an age where we have access to advanced contraceptives that substantially reduce the risks of unwanted pregnancy when used properly. Also we are now able to test for the full range of sexually spread diseases.  As such, I see little reason why responsible, ethical adults should not be able to fully enjoy each other’s sexuality, now that it is possible to minimize the risks of doing so. 

When the holy books were written it was common for people to be married in their early teenage years, as they were starting to develop strong sexual feelings. Today, people at what was once considered marrying age are now considered children, and are usually dependent on their families.  Realistically, securing a good future in this day and age requires years of school and people are becoming financially independent and thus ready for marriage at a much later age. In ancient times abstaining from sex prior to marriage may have meant a few years after the onset of puberty. Now it may mean over a decade or more afterwards.  I don’t think denying one’s sexual desires for this long is a psychologically healthy option for most people.  As an unmarried twenty-something I personally find the notion that I should deny all sexual feelings until I find someone willing to marry me unrealistic and downright silly.  

I am convinced that biology agrees.  Even during the prudish Victorian times, there is evidence that secret pregnancies were among the primary causes of marriage. Additionally, regions with strong sex-negative cultures tend to have high rates of teen and other unwanted pregnancies.  It is likely that emphasis on abstinence only sex education contributes to this problem, since it commands young people to fight their biological impulses and gives them no tools to prevent pregnancies or venereal diseases when they find this fight unwinnable. 

I have heard it argued that religions, especially bookish religions like the big monotheisms, often have a tendency to oppose the introduction of technology or cultural changes that alleviate or remove the ugly consequences of acts that violate the written commands found in their outdated holy books.  I think this is well illustrated by the Catholic church’s anti-contraceptive stance, which has caused great harm in many AIDS ridden countries. The church’s opposition to condom use and its associated misinformation has almost certainly contributed to the spread of the disease.

In George Orwell’s dystopia 1984 the totalitarian state very much opposed non-reproductive sex, and taught the population that sex was foul and disgusting and that engaging in it should be done out of duty to the party. The party even had a project to abolish the orgasm in the works. It is suggested that the reason for this was because a healthy sex life creates people who are empowered and willing to act for themselves, while it is much easier to channel the energy of sexually deprived people into servile work, marching and warfare. I think there is an element of truth in this and I suspect that the extremist manifestations of the major religions often adopt negative attitudes towards sex because sexuality provides a realm in people’s lives in which they are in control rather than some deity.  

It also has to be mentioned that sexually prohibitive religions almost always have a sexist bent to their teachings.  Women are viewed as sources of temptation and uncleanliness, rather than given the respect they deserve. This is often accompanied with a demand that they accept submissiveness to their husbands.  It has been argued that much of the prejudice against homosexuality stems from sexism against women.  The old testament forbids men lying with men as they would with women.  This language suggests that the problem with homosexuality is that it demasculinizes men since one of them is being penetrated as a woman would be in heterosexual sex.  Note, however, the lack of specific prohibitions against female homosexual activity. 

There are many other aspects of this topic that deserve to be covered, but will have to be neglected since this piece is already very long. One is female genital mutilation which is a religious practice deserving of its own entry on this blog.  I will close by saying that I reject the concept of sin altogether and prefer to judge things on their tangible consequences. From that perspective, I see nothing wrong with sex before marriage, choosing to abstain from marriage, ethical non-monogamy, contraception, masturbation, and creating a culture that is more open to talking about these issues. In fact, I tend to be a fan of all these things. Whatever you do, make your own decisions, be mindful of all the risks associated with your actions, treat your partner/partners ethically, take responsibility for your actions, and have fun!!!

 



  • Tip O’Neill

    The origin of religious sexual proscriptions was simply to control females, which were basically considered property, so that their owner (husband, father..) could be assured that any offspring was in fact, genetically, his.

    No one really cared about sexual pleasure – that was a given for males and unnecessary in females – it’s all about reproduction and control of the eggs.

    “Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.” ~ Butch Hancock

     

    • Pacific Babe

      What a great quote.
       
      I see absolutely no difference in the origins of religious sex and what the religious community preaches today. 
       
      A shout out to Hillary Clinton with her intention (and hopefully follow-thru) to have an aids free generation beginning 2015.  The medical community has done wonders for AIDS.  If they can produce a reliable vaccine to eradicate this sexually transmitted disease then they’ll be well on their way.  Babe

  • Carolyn Classen

    I just reviewed Orwell’s dystopia “1984″ and here’s what he wrote:
    “The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men & women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and –though the principle was never clearly stated — permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another.”

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/community/2011/11/05/is-big-brother-watching-us-read-1984/

  • George Wheeler-Brownlee

    Hear! Hear! Well said, David. Thank you for your articulate honesty. George

  • Pacific Babe

    Where are you Anon3.  Surely you have an opinion on this topic.  Babe

    • Tip O’Neill

      >” I think pornography is an abomination, because at the very least it demeans the dignity of woman. ”

      I’m in total agreement with Anon on this one, which is why I only watch gay porn :)  

      • Steve Holt

        My favorite post of the day.

        • Pacific Babe

          We haven’t known Tip for long but I too sure  look forward to his comments and sense of humor.  He’s a pretty incredible guy.  Babe

    • jason

      “pornography is an abomination, because at the very least it demeans the dignity of woman.”

      This over-the-top statement is exemplary of Christian bias.
      As Tip already pointed out, there is plenty of gay porn and lesbian porn, as well as “soft-core” or “couples porn” that wouldn’t demean the dignity of women unless your definition of demean is any sexual act involving a woman (even then gay porn is excluded).
      That said, of course there is also porn that by almost any definition depicts demeaning behavior towards women. No argument about that. But then we must examine the consequences in the context of consenting adults.

      Christianity teaches that committing the sin (i.e. of adultery) in your heart is the same as committing it in reality. Why that standard applies to matters of sex far more stringently than to matters of violence is another topic; for now let’s take it at face value.

      The rival to the Christian idea is its opposite – thinking about something is not the same as committing it in reality.

      Who is right? If anyone has any doubt I suggest that they survey 100 rape victims, as to whether they would be just as bad off if their attackers had only *thought* about raping them instead of actually doing it. Why do I bring up rape? Because there is substantial evidence that watching porn actually reduces rape, not a little but a lot:
      http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html

      You may counter that the acts depicted in porn actually happened, and it’s those acts (rather than viewing the porn) that are objectionable. But those women were paid, consenting, and in large measure every bit as much acting as stunt doubles in violent/dangerous films. I’m not saying it’s pretty (neither are films like the Saw series or the Human Centipede) but it is consensual and largely an elaborate simulation. And if it prevents rape, which it seems to, the outcome is not all bad.

      Which is more “demeaning” – being paid to act demeaned with your consent, or being forcibly raped? I think the latter.

      • anon3

        “Christianity teaches that committing the sin (i.e. of adultery) in your heart is the same as committing it in reality.”

        Are you serious?  The doctrine is that committing sin is a sin.  But sin comes in degrees.  In your example, committing adultery “in reality” counts double because you certainly committed in your heart already. It’s like saying tailgating and not signaling a lane change are the “same” because they’re both against the law.

        No one is deluded that various sins don’t vary in their offense.  

        “The rival to the Christian idea is its opposite – thinking about something is not the same as committing it in reality.  Who is right?”
        Not you.

        Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

        “Which is more “demeaning” – being paid to act demeaned with your consent, or being forcibly raped? I think the latter.
        Which isn’t demeaning?

        But all of this is a red herring having nothing to do with anything I said.

         
         

        • jason

          ” “Which is more “demeaning” – being paid to act demeaned with your consent, or being forcibly raped? I think the latter.
          Which isn’t demeaning?”

          Being paid to act demeaned.

          “But all of this is a red herring having nothing to do with anything I said.”

          Quite the contrary – It’s about reality, rape being the most heinous and demeaning thing that can be done in reality, versus your fantasy that women would be less demeaned if the only porn in the world was gay porn.

          • Anon 3

            “Being paid to act demeaned.”

            A woman gets paid to be in pornographic media of some sort.  She personally might not feel demeaned, but you really think that her act doesn’t sum up to degradation of female dignity on the whole?  

            “ It’s about reality, rape being the most heinous and demeaning thing that can be done in reality, versus your fantasy that women would be less demeaned if the only porn in the world was gay porn.”

            Can you think  of ways that is demeaning to women that isn’t rape?  Women conspiring with men to objectify women isn’t demeaning?  How about all airbrushed pictures of  women in bikinis available at grocery stores.  Just because the woman in the picture makes millions of dollars doesn’t ease the fact that it causes many women strife to see these impossible images of feminine beauty.  

            • jason

              “She personally might not feel demeaned, but you really think that her act doesn’t sum up to degradation of female dignity on the whole? ”

              It doesn’t, not the least of which because “female dignity on the whole” is a meaningless measure.

              “Just because the woman in the picture makes millions of dollars doesn’t ease the fact that it causes many women strife to see these impossible images of feminine beauty. ”

              Not to get all hoity-toity and philosophical on you, but equating something that’s “impossible” with “feminine beauty” is a major error in thinking. The impossible applied to the human form is not beautiful. However, let’s presume you really mean “impossible for most women to achieve.” The problem still isn’t the image, but how people respond to it. The same case could be made for magazines showing male body-builders. Not “impossible” for them, but “impossible” for you and me. Looking at body builders does not cause me “strife”. If it did, the mistake would be in my reaction, not in the content of the picture. Same goes for idealized images of women.

              • anon3

                “It doesn’t, not the least of which because “female dignity on the whole” is a meaningless measure.”

                Are you saying that on the whole, females don’t possess a measure of dignity which can be demeaned?  I have no idea what you’re thinking.

                “However, let’s presume you really mean “impossible for most women to achieve.” ”

                Can you possibly stop presuming and ask for a clarification? 

                “The problem still isn’t the image, but how people respond to it. ”

                The same logic would apply to bullets, right?  The problem isn’t the crossfire, but how people respond to high-velocity bullets.  Perhaps the problem is how people respond, but the solution just might be to stop firing guns across busy streets.

                “The same case could be made for magazines showing male body-builders.”

                The assumption that you and I react like women is daily proven wrong here and all the time in scientific literature.  You understand that grocery checkout aisles don’t have male bodybuilding magazines for a reason, right?  Men and women are different.  

                “If it did, the mistake would be in my reaction, not in the content of the picture. ”

                The content of the pictures isn’t the problem necessarily.   The problem is the intent.  

                • jason

                  “Are you saying that on the whole, females don’t possess a measure of dignity which can be demeaned?”

                  That’s exactly what I’m saying. Dignity is an attribute of individuals, not of categorical groups. An individual woman has dignity which can be demeaned, but not “females on the whole”.

                  My dignity “as a man” or otherwise, is not demeaned by the existance of gay porn. My wife’s dignity “as a woman” or otherwise, is not demeaned by the existance of straight porn. We are only demeaned, or not, by what we choose to do or what is done to us without our consent.

                  ” “The problem still isn’t the image, but how people respond to it. ”

                  The same logic would apply to bullets, right?”

                  No, though I’ll concede the reason why it doesn’t apply hinges on your position regarding the still-outstanding dispute between Tip and I over the existance of free will. I maintain that one may make a free will choice regarding how to respond to an image, whereas one has no power over how to respond to a bullet.

                  I am rather surprised by this position of yours. I thought you were the sort of Christian who believes in free will. Are you of the variety that believes some are predestined to heaven, and others to hell?

                  “The assumption that you and I react like women is daily proven wrong here and all the time in scientific literature.”

                  You’re confusing an “is” with an “ought”. Some women react badly to some stimuli. Some men react badly to different stimuli – “road rage” for example is a predominantly male phenomenon. Just because some react badly, doesn’t mean they ought to.

                  • Pacific Babe

                    Jason:  Another LOL moment when you nailed Anon3 with this comment “I am rather surprised by this position of yours. I thought you were the sort of Christian who believes in free will. Are you of the variety that believes some are predestined to heaven, and others to hell?” Thank you!  Babe

                  • Tip O’Neill

                    >”. I maintain that one may make a free will choice regarding how to respond to an image, whereas one has no power over how to respond to a bullet.”

                    That’s interesting, because porn is a great illustration of our bodies and minds automatically reacting, secreting hormones and becoming erect and having new thoughts and desires – simply by something as simple as looking at a video.

                    Porn wouldn’t work, otherwise. 

                    • jason

                      We have the choice whether to look at porn or not, and we have the choice even when looking at it to think of something that counteracts its effects.

                      Try thinking of something you find revolting while looking at a picture of a pretty woman – at least in my experience the biology will definitely work differently.

                  • Anon 3

                    “Dignity is an attribute of individuals, not of categorical groups.”

                    That’s such an arbitrary position to take.  Mutuality makes the debasement or triumph of one individual the debasement or triumph of all individuals to some extent.  Dignity is shared.     
                    “whereas one has no power over how to respond to a bullet.”
                    You mean you’re ready to concede that death by bullets is unavoidable?

                    “I am rather surprised by this position of yours. I thought you were the sort of Christian who believes in free will. Are you of the variety that believes some are predestined to heaven, and others to hell?”

                    I believe that free will is constrained by predestination.  But of course, I doubt you and I have the same notions of “free will” and “predestination.”  

                    • jason

                      “Mutuality makes the debasement or triumph of one individual the debasement or triumph of all individuals to some extent.”

                      That defies all logic. I’ve heard that some men like to be whipped and urinated on. Sort of an extreme example of the “some people like nipple clamps” I mentioned previously. Now if that happened to me, I’d consider it pretty debasing. But the fact that it merely happens to someone, somewhere with their consent affects me not in the slightest. It makes it no more likely that it would ever happen to me.

                      Now, if someone, somewhere is whipped and urinated on *without their consent*, then yeah that’s definitely a problem for me and for everyone else. Because if we stand by and allow others’ rights to be violated, it means our own rights can be violated as well.

                      So to put it in your terms, there is mutuality in rights, but not in debasement.

                      “Dignity is shared.”

                      By what mechanism?

                      “You mean you’re ready to concede that death by bullets is unavoidable?”

                      I’ve been over this before. Death or injury by bullets is not immediately avoidable. It is avoidable at some point in the future, either by eliminating the situations in which bullets are currently used or by developing technology which protects people from them.

                      Was death by plague avoidable in the 1300′s? Not with the knowledge they had at the time. But with the knowledge we have today, it is very much avoidable. Think what we can accomplish in another 700 years.

                  • Anon 3

                    “By what mechanism?”

                    Empathy.  Humanity.  Decency.  Mutuality.

                     

            • anon3

              “Can you think  of ways that is demeaning to women that isn’t rape? ”

              Were you not able to think of something?   

              • Pacific Babe

                Anon3 … you sure get pissy when someone doesn’t answer your questions and yet you consistently fail to answer questions.  You’re a control freak aren’t you?  Babe

                • Anon 3

                  “ you sure get pissy…”

                  Do you remember what I said about projecting your own feelings on me?

                  • Pacific Babe

                    Dang … you just can’t give up control can you?  Babe

              • jason

                There are a variety of things which can be done to a human being (female or otherwise) that are demeaning but not rape. I’m not going to attempt a comprehensive catalog, but I’d include things like assault & battery, slander, wedgies, and noogies.

                • Anon 3

                  I’m not asking so much for a catalog as something of a characterization.  A definition.  Rules of thumb… 

                   

        • Pacific Babe

          By the way, Anon3, the Stephen Uhl mentioned below is the same Stephen Uhl you read about in this link:  http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/11/09/phoenix-and-tucson-nontheists-come-‘out-of-the-closet’-in-ffrf-billboard-blitz-2/
           
          Note that he’s a FORMER Roman Catholic priest.  Babe

        • Pacific Babe

          BTW Anon3, there isn’t sin.  That’s in your deluded mind. There are crimes … no sin.  You can get over it, really you can.  Babe

          • anon3

            “There are crimes … no sin. ”

            Criticizing a grossly fat person…  Is that a crime or a sin?

            It’s obvious to anyone that you believe in sin.

            • Pacific Babe

              Anon3 … where would you get the idea that I think b/c you’ve criticized a fat person that you’ve committed a sin?  How did you arrive at that?  If sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law then no sin was involved w/your comments.  I simply think you are WRONG!  Wrong in your approach to protecting women, wrong in your approach to abortion, wrong in your belief in a sky fairy, wrong in your belief that Jesus is anything but a myth.  There’s likely more I think you are wrong about.  However, I don’t believe you have ever “sinned”.  Perhaps you’ve committed a crime that hasn’t yet been exposed to, or you’ve acted in an immoral or amoral way, but certainly you’ve committed no sin.  Neither have I.  Babe

              • anon3

                You do know that most words have more than one definition.  If there is no sin, what can you possibly mean by the word “immoral”?  When you call me “immoral” you must mean something like “You have transgressed against some (possibly universal) moral principle” rather than “I think your opinion might be wrong.”    

                When you take the time to tell me that I lie, why does it matter if there is no sin?  You’re either being grossly irrelevant or grossly inconsistent since lying is not a crime.

                When I say you are amoral, this is exactly what I mean. 

                 

                • Pacific Babe

                  Anon3:  I reject your claim.  Morality and sin have nothing in common. Morality adheres to a code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable to society.  I agree with YOU that YOU are immoral and amoral because you do not meet behavior that is acceptable to society.  Ie: YOU reject safe abortions which can only mean that a coathanger abortion is acceptable to you.  You prefer a human death over a fetus death. You’ve stated you lie, and I am simply agreeing.   Lying can be a crime.  However your ability to lie to yourself and others by stating there is a god, is not something I need to worry about.  I can easily shun you and others like you.  Babe

                  • Anon 3

                    “YOU reject safe abortions which can only mean that a coathanger abortion is acceptable to you. ”

                    Doesn’t it hurt to reason so poorly?

                    “You prefer a human death over a fetus death.”

                    Another false dichotomy.

                  • Anon 3

                    “I reject your claim.  Morality and sin have nothing in common. ”

                    As you wish.  But the dictionary doesn’t concur with you.

                    “YOU reject safe abortions which can only mean that a coathanger abortion is acceptable to you. ”

                    Doesn’t it hurt to reason so poorly?

                    “You prefer a human death over a fetus death.”

                    Another false dichotomy.

    • jason

      “For one, he doesn’t think he can control his sex drive. For two, he thinks he shouldn’t have to.”

      I haven’t seen David or anyone else advocating rape. Quite the opposite, I think David would agree that we are all capable and morally bound to control our sex drive and only engage in acts with consenting adults.

      “I think the idea that two consenting adults can do whatever they want without societal ramifications is a rather childish idea. In particular, no one has sex in a vacuum. ”

      I don’t think they make vacuums big enough, but if they do, I’ll bet someone somewhere has had sex in one. :-)

      Humor aside, calling an idea “childish” is typical cover to avoiding thinking very clearly about the idea. To be fair, lots of atheists do that also with regards to ideas like libertarianism, for much the same reason. Nevertheless, the irony is not lost on me that you, the advocate of a sky fairy who loves everyone but allows innocent children to be swept out to sea in a Tsunami, has the gall to call the idea of consenting adults solely deciding whether or not to have sex “childish”.

      Humans are social animals and in that context *everything* we do has a social component. The relevant question for any act is not whether there’s a social impact, but rather what are the rights of the individual with regards to imposing that particular social impact. To use speech as an example, shouting “Obama Sucks!” on a busy street corner and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater both have a social imact. The former is protected free speech whether Obama objectively “sucks” or not; but the latter is reckless endangerment and fraud if there’s not an actual fire.

      “There are some risks that are worth taking, but I doubt undisciplined casual sex is one of them.”

      That’s not the issue. The issue is who gets to decide whether or not its a risk worth taking? David is making the case that it should be an individual decision, not a societal decision. That’s not a “childish” conjecture. If you have a reasoned criticism of it, fine let’s hear it. But simply calling it childish, or asserting that there’s some nebulous “societal forces” involved, doesn’t make the cut.

      “I also think that our culture is increasingly becoming myopic about the future.”

      I’m inclined to agree. But the answer is reason and promoting forethought on the part of individuals, not top down dictates from either the government or an ancient anti-intellectual superstition.

      • anon3

        “I haven’t seen David or anyone else advocating rape. Quite the opposite, I think David would agree that we are all capable and morally bound to control our sex drive and only engage in acts with consenting adults.”

        What do you think about consenting children, say a pair of 12 year olds?  I think it was said that 15 year-olds got married back in the day.  The funny thing was that these 15 year-olds were twice the adults that modern 30 year-olds are.  There has to be some societal understanding that adulthood is a qualitative category, not a quantitative one.

        “calling an idea “childish” is typical cover to avoiding thinking very clearly about the idea.”

        So, you’re insinuating that the idea of “sky fairies” is childish.  Do you see the self-defeating argument in there?

        “ To use speech as an example, shouting “Obama Sucks!” on a busy street corner and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater both have a social imact.”

        But neither is analogous since they’re not something that everyone is expected to do.   
        “That’s not the issue. The issue is who gets to decide whether or not its a risk worth taking? David is making the case that it should be an individual decision, not a societal decision. That’s not a “childish” conjecture. If you have a reasoned criticism of it, fine let’s hear it.”

        Children are focused on how much fun they’ll have.  Adults take care of such children.  These are the rough outlines of the distinctions between children and adults in my head.  Children make individual decisions, and adults make societal decisions.

        • jason

          “What do you think about consenting children, say a pair of 12 year olds?”

          I used the word “adult” for a reason. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual acts. I’ll grant that adulthood is a qualitative category, but I’ve never met a 12 year old I would consider even remotely an adult in such matters.

          “So, you’re insinuating that the idea of “sky fairies” is childish. Do you see the self-defeating argument in there?”

          If the shoe fits, wear it. Does not Christianity (Matthew 18:1-4) admonish you to come to Jesus with the faith of a child?

          Irony is not self-defeating.

          “neither is analogous since they’re not something that everyone is expected to do”

          Neither is sex! Who expects everyone to have sex? The mind boggles…
          For the record, lots of people don’t: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
          “In all of adulthood until the time of surveying (given that surveyed people were of different ages), the number of partners was zero for 2.9% of adults: 3.4% of men and 2.5% of women”

          “Children are focused on how much fun they’ll have. Adults take care of such children. These are the rough outlines of the distinctions between children and adults in my head. Children make individual decisions, and adults make societal decisions.”

          Well now, we’ll just have see if the socialist and communist atheists out there will jump in to defend you here, since that’s the basis for a lot of their economic thinking as well. All they do is substitute “greedy” and “selfish” for children and “money” for fun.

          Here are my criticisms of this conjecture:
          (1) Even very young children routinely focus on things other than fun.
          (2) Even very mature and productive adults routinely focus on having fun. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that without periodically focusing on fun, an adult’s productive capacity is significantly diminished.
          (3) You assume, incorrectly, that sound individual decisions are often/usually/always fun.
          (4) You assume, incorrectly, that sound societal decisions are often/usually/always not fun.
          (5) Most importantly, and perhaps controversially, you assume that decisions made to benefit society often/usually/always conflict with decisions made to benefit one’s self, and that when a conflict arises the societal decisions are superior to the individual decisions.

          Any one of the first four sinks your conjecture about the difference between children and adults, and the last one sinks the implicit premise in your distinction that it’s better to be an adult.

          • Anon 3

            “I used the word “adult” for a reason.”
            Right.  But what’s an adult?  It’s rare these days to meet an 18-year-old who I’d consider an adult.

            “Does not Christianity (Matthew 18:1-4) admonish you to come to Jesus with the faith of a child?”

            Yes.  But that’s distinct from people thinking immaturely.  The command to be like a child is a command to be innocent, not to be immature.  To be humble, rather than prideful.

            “neither is analogous since they’re not something that everyone is expected to do”

            Didn’t you hear?  It’s a *biological* urge.  You’re denying your biological mandate if you don’t have sex (with contraception, though).    

            Also, am I reading you right that 97.9% of people doesn’t constitute “everyone”?  Don’t you think I could be spared a 3% margin of error?

            “Here are my criticisms of this conjecture:”

            Obviously, what I stated was gross generalizations, stated with more for clarity than precision.  I don’t consider adult and child to be mutually exclusive categories.  If I could enumerate all the criteria for being an adult, it would be a quantifiable category.   Also, I was not saying that individual and societal interests don’t overlap.  You’re mostly speaking about your assumptions about my assumptions.  

            • jason

              “It’s rare these days to meet an 18-year-old who I’d consider an adult.”

              That’s because most of them spend the 12 years they should be becoming adults wharehoused in government indoctrination camps.  But that’s another matter. :-)

              “Yes. But that’s distinct from people thinking immaturely.”

              So say you. When I read the Bible and see verses admonishing people to lean not on their own understanding, and believe fantastical conjectures that are easily refuted, it sounds pretty immature to me. Which is the problem with the Bible – despite its claims of infallibility, it’s like nailing jello to a wall. You can make it say just about whatever you want it to say.

              “Also, am I reading you right that 97.9% of people doesn’t constitute “everyone”? Don’t you think I could be spared a 3% margin of error? ”

              Not with a word like “everyone”. And your conjecture fails if you substitute “most people”, since I’d hazard a guess that most people have expressed a controversial political opinion at some time in their life too.
               

              • Anon 3

                “I’d hazard a guess that most people have expressed a controversial political opinion at some time in their life too.”

                I don’t understand this comment.

        • Pacific Babe

          Look who brings children into the topic, none other than a christian.  David never once promoted children having consensual sex.  Clearly your parenting skills are low at best.  Babe

          • Anon 3

            “ Clearly your parenting skills are low at best.”

            Clearly, you’re very qualified to make such a judgment. 

            “Look who brings children into the topic, none other than a christian.  ”

            I know you’re new to this reasoning this, but when you have discussion, we try to find common ground.  We can all agree that
            12-year-old children aren’t capable of making decisions about sex.  Moreover, we can agree that other people should make these decisions for the 12-year-olds.  But in lieu of anyone actually making adult decisions, more 12 year olds are becoming sexually active.  The question is at what age does someone become competent enough to make such decision?  Legally, we take a numerical approach, but we all know that not all people of a certain age is mature enough to make such decisions.  But we let them anyway, though they don’t qualitatively qualify to be an adult.  Marriage used to be a qualitative constraint to sex rather than quantitative one we assign legally these days.  

            • Pacific Babe

              Anon3 … No where in David’s topic did he ever discuss having sex with children.  YOU brought children into the topic.  This discussion is about adults having respectable consensual sex.  This isn’t the time to topic to discuss when a child is adult enough to become sexually active.  However, since you brought up the subject, it’s been noted by many school administrators that children are having oral sex in the back seat of a car so that they can maintain their abstinence position knowing no one will get pregnant.  So abstinence doesn’t work.  12 year olds today aren’t any different than they were in 1964, when I was 12.  Then, the boy next door groped me when I was babysitting.  I didn’t have a clue what was happening.  I knew it felt good but I also had a lot of anxiety and guilt.  Masturbating caused the same reaction. Didn’t you experiment at 12?  If you didn’t I expect you are a whole lot odder than I’ve thought. 
               
              As to your comment “Clearly, you’re very qualified to make such a judgment” … I am no different than you.  You have been judging people ever since you arrived on this blog.  Christians are the creepiest people I’ve met.  Babe

              • Anon 3

                “No where in David’s topic did he ever discuss having sex with children.  YOU brought children into the topic. ”

                Except that I’d categorize many twenty-somethings as children with no business consenting to have sex.

                “You have been judging people ever since you arrived on this blog. ”
                Yes.  

                “I am no different than you…  Christians are the creepiest people I’ve met. ”
                Are you saying you’re creepy?  

                • Pacific Babe

                  Nice try christian!  It went like this:   I am no different than you. You have been judging people ever since you arrived on this blog. Babe

              • anon3

                “You have been judging people ever since you arrived on this blog. ”

                Just so you’re clear.  I was questioning your qualification to judge, not your right (or even duty) to reasonably judge.

                • Pacific Babe

                  Anon3:  I have exactly the same qualifications as you to judge.   You are a bigoted oppressive misogynist who lies.  Babe

      • jason

        “My only criticism with porn is that it likely isn’t as well regulated as it needs to be … ”

        I don’t think there needs to be specific regulations on porn apart from age and informed consent verification (which are already in place). However, porn shares something important in common with a wide range of issues including prostitution, health care, payday lending, gambling, addictive drugs, etc. That is, it is an industry characterized by the perception of highly unbalanced power relationships.

        The better critics of libertarianism (meaning, the ones who know a lot about libertarianism and have thought about it a lot even though they disagree with it) tend to focus on this general category. Markets work, they concede, when participants’ relative power is relatively equal or at least not grossly unbalanced. But, they challenge, when there are vast power disparities the market turns into mostly or entirely a vehicle for the stronger party to exploit the weaker party(s). 

        A proper discussion of that matter would fill an entire blog entry and then some, but I raise it here merely to avoid a laundry list of proposed regulations whose real motivation is a singular aim to address the perceived power disparity between porn producers and porn stars.  

        Apart from age and informed consent verification, and any regulations designed to address power disparities, what regulations do you think are needed on porn and why?

          

        • Pacific Babe

          Jason, I haven’t thought about regulations for porn much at all.  However, recently there was a high-profile case where both men and women porn stars were infected with AIDS.  Since I don’t know about the porn industry, I don’t know if there is a process where they are medically checked periodically for STD’s.  I hope there is, but if there isn’t I’d like it in place.
           
          I lived in Reno, NV where brothels are legal.  There were few regulations 1) they had to be outside city limits 2) prostitutes had to be of legal age and provide their own toys 3) all johns were required to wear a condom 4) all prostitutes were checked for STD’s monthly by the Washoe County Dr.  5) prostitutes had to be drug-free and were tested for that as well.  In my 9 yrs in NV I never saw a street prostitute.  There were no reports that came out of a brothel of the johns beating up women.  The prostitutes received a significant salary for working 21 days a month and were able to feed and clothe their children.  Many prostitutes were married and one Madam ran for a county seat and won.    While I won’t claim it’s a respected job in Reno, I will say that nobody seemed to fuss about it.  The point I’m making is that prostitution in Nevada was well-regulated and it worked well.  Being that porn is produced in most major cities and drugs are involved, I “think” it could be better regulated.  And yes, I too am for legalizing drugs, but in the case of porn, I “expect but don’t know” needles are likely reused, drugs might be used to induce performance etc etc.  You being a libertarian believe an industry should regulate itself and while you continue to sway me, I am still skeptical of whether or not an industry like porn would regulate itself.  Babe

          • Pacific Babe

            I want to add this for Anon3.  In the 9 years we lived in NV I don’t believe my X ever visited a brothel.  We were pretty open and I expect he would have shared that experience with me, but perhaps not.  Had he shared it with me, I wouldn’t have gone stark raving mad.  I likely would have been curious … what did you do? how much did it cost?  what did the brothel look like?  can you take me there?
             
            If my X did have a tendency for this sort of behavior, I would have preferred he use a legal brothel rather than cruising a street to pick up a streetwalker. It’s safer all the way around.
             
            I did eventually see the inside of a brothel … I worked for Valley Bank of Nevada and they needed what was then called an Omron machine to process Visa/MC/AmX etc … So I sold it to them and installed it.   It was an erotic experience for me :-)   … Babe

          • jason

            ” I don’t know if there is a process where they are medically checked periodically for STD’s. I hope there is, but if there isn’t I’d like it in place.”

            I don’t know either, but I would assume it’s the same process by which any sexually active person is medically checked periodically for STD’s. What is it about the presence of a movie camera during a sex act that calls for the administration of forced medical tests?

            “I too am for legalizing drugs, but in the case of porn, I “expect but don’t know” needles are likely reused, drugs might be used to induce performance etc etc.”

            If you drug a person (or give them perfectly legal alcohol) to the point of incomprehension and then have sex with them, it’s rape. As it very well should be, whether a camera is present or not. That is not a regulation that is or needs to be specific to porn.

            “You being a libertarian believe an industry should regulate itself and while you continue to sway me, I am still skeptical of whether or not an industry like porn would regulate itself.”

            This is another misconception about libertarians. By and large, nobody – not individuals, or businesses, or industries – entirely ”regulates themselves” except in the presence of consequences. Consequences can be totally natural (“If you jump off the bridge, you’re going to hit the bottom and it’s probably gonna hurt”) or imposed by others (“If you murder someone, the rest of the community is going to gang up and put you in jail”).

            When any person, entity, or industry infringes on the rights of others, the government is the best mechanism we have today for bringing imposed consequences to bear on that infringement without destroying the fabric of society in the process. I doubt we disagree about that.

            The issue we may disagree about is, what are the rights the government should be brought to bear to protect, and what is not a right and should be left to natural consequences only?

            • Pacific Babe

              Jason:  What is it about the presence of a movie camera during a sex act that calls for the administration of forced medical tests?
               
              A movie camera shouldn’t be a need for STD testing, but sex acts w/multiple partners should require testing on a periodic basis.  IMHO.  If I’m wrong, tell me why because I don’t see what I’m missing.  Babe

              • jason

                “sex acts w/multiple partners should require testing on a periodic basis.”

                OK, so it’s not the camera it’s multiple partners that calls for forced medical testing in your opinion? In that case, how would you propose to implement such a requirement without turning the country into the very Big Brother oppressive tyranny that David was criticizing? How would the government know who was having sex with multiple partners, in order to enforce the requirement for medical testing?

                And, if you give the government the power to require this testing, what would prevent Christians in government from making the testing requirements ever more stringent and difficult to meet, in order to simply discourage having sex with multiple partners? This isn’t some fanciful speculation – you know they are doing something very similar to that right now in Arizona with regard to Abortion. They are not “outlawing” abortion, just making it difficult to obtain.

                • Pacific Babe

                  Oh Jason, you make extremely valid points that cause me to use my brain and think, and now I’m discouraged.  Do I have it right, …. perhaps I’m not using the best reason?  Let’s go back to NV and legalized prostitution where once a month STD tests seemed to work just fine.  If one is a porn star couldn’t it be such that to keep a license would require a periodic STD test?  If you were a porn star would you think it reasonable to have regular test?  Would you do it voluntarily?  What if your SUPER SUPER STAR partner refused the test?  Okay you “could” walk away, but what if you had two  starving children and your only asset was an large member and you had no other skills to feed your children?  I think some government interference is good, but I agree it can go too far.  Babe

                  • jason

                    If it’s having multiple sexual partners that calls for forced medical tests (which I don’t agree does…but supposing so for sake of argument), and not cameras, then why would you apply the standard only to porn stars? That’s discrimination.

                    Point being, if having multiple partners justifies forced medical tests you have to come up with a realistic way to enforce that against everyone, not just porn stars. Otherwise you’re unfairly singling out one group on an unjustifiable basis.

                    There’s another point here, and that’s about what is reasonable.
                    First of all, I think it’s reasonable if one is having sex with multiple partners to use a condom / require one’s partner to use a condom every time.
                    Second of all, I think it’s reasonable for anyone having sex without a condom to want to either know with a good deal of certainty that their partner is a virgin, or have their partner tested for STDs first.
                    Third, I think even granting that the first two rules are followed, it’s reasonable for someone having sex with multiple partners to get tested periodically for STDs.
                    I doubt that we have any disagreement about what’s reasonable in this matter.

                    However, the purpose of government isn’t to force people to be reasonable. The purpose of government is to protect people from having their rights violated by other people.

                    I also happen to think it’s reasonable to reject beliefs in sky fairies, avoid sugary drinks, and floss my teeth daily. But it’s not the job of government to be sure I do those things.

                • Pacific Babe

                  Jason:  One more thing.  I don’t expect the gov’t to act as a big brother and enforce STD tests for everyone, only those who participate in industries such as prostitution and/or porn.  When/if I have an intimidate relationship, it’s my job to ask the pertinent questions and insist on condoms and verification of STD status.  To overlook that in my opinion is to engage in sexual roulette and then shame on me.  So, I don’t feel the medical community should report whether or not I’ve had multiple partners and who they’ve been.  An adult needs to take responsibility for their decision to enter into an intimate relationship.  Babe

                  • jason

                    Our replies crossed, but now it seems you’re back to saying it’s only porn stars & prostitutes who should be subjected to forced medical testing. So I return to my question:

                    What is it about the presence of a camera (in the case of porn) that calls for forced medical tests?

                    I would conjecture that if you think about this, you’ll conclude it’s not the presence of a camera. After all, there aren’t cameras present most of the time prostitutes are working. Rather, it’s the presence of money. If I’m wrong about that, then by all means please tell me what it is about the camera in the case of porn stars. But assuming it’s not the camera but the money…

                    This is a subject that Marc Victor covered at the last Freethought Arizona meeting: the legal doctrine of “regulating commerce” is a farce and a fallacy. There is no distinction between human rights and economic rights. People don’t give up their rights as human beings simply because they’re trading around little pieces of paper stamped “In God We Trust”. If you disagree, can you explain why?

                    Logically – if it’s none of the government’s business if two people have unprotected sex in general, then why does it suddenly become the government’s business when one person pays the other to allow a camera to be present? Again – I’m speaking about this apart from the matter of power disparities which as I mentioned before are significant but also a long and complicated subject.

                    Can you explain how the simple act of trading money could cause people to lose fundamental rights, like the right to determine what medical procedures they’ll undergo?

      • Pacific Babe

        Darn it Anon3 these last comments of yours are such a disappointment.  I was so hoping for a bible verse.  Babe

    • Pacific Babe

      Geez RM, I thought I was the only one!  :-)   Babe

  • http://www.outofgodscloset.com Stephen Uhl

    Pacific Babe, was there some rationalizable  reason why you invited Anon 3 to this discussion? He or she seems to have missed the basic point that David made so clearly: ”Whatever you do, make your own decisions, be mindful of all the risks associated with your actions, treat your partner/partners ethically, take responsibility for your actions, and have fun!!!”

    Somehow this does not seem at all undisciplined to me.

    Thanks, David, for your well reasoned contribution.

    • Pacific Babe

      Stephen:  I invited Anon3 to the discussion because thru him, hopefully other christians will recognize themselves as the oppressive misogynists that they too likely are.  If you haven’t followed this blog closely, you might not know that Anon3 is our representative christian … He’s as pure as the driven snow.Babe

      • Tip O’Neill

        I used to be pure as snow – but then I drifted

        • Pacific Babe

          Really?  I’m so delighted to hear this.  Babe

  • Pacific Babe

    For Anon3:  I expect you heard Mississippi voted down the Personhood Amendment. I’d like your thoughts assuming it suits you to respond.  With over 900K so baptists, $250K methodists, 115K catholics, & 3900 muslims should I assume they have become smarter and kinder?  Or should I assume with an population of almost 3 Mil there are enough who are educated and non-believers and they swayed the vote?  Let’s hope it’s the latter.  Babe

    • Tip O’Neill

      >”Mississippi voted down the Personhood Amendment”

      It is another illustration of my observation that christians  don’t REALLY believe what they say they “believe”.

       What they hate about abortion is their belief that sluts are having sex and not being appropriately punished by pregnancy – like the good old days.

      But they cant say that – so they say that the women are “baby killers” and have to pretend that it is baby killing.

      Except deep down they know that a rape victim who chooses not to go thru pregnancy is NOT the same as someone who murders an infant – but they can’t say that.

       

      • Pacific Babe

        Tip:  If christians believed what they said they believed they’d all commit suicide after any communion.  BTW, when can we expect to read the Free Will topic you’re writing for the blog?  Babe

        • Tip O’Neill

          No they do think suicide is a sin that would cancel out the Communion.
          But thanks for the happy thought :)
           

  • Pacific Babe

    For Jason … A response to your last message to me.  Okay, I agree under the libertarian perspective that regulation b/c of multiple partners doesn’t make sense, but take off your libertarian hat (and I know you hate to do that) and think about our society as it is today.  If YOU and I mean YOU decided to head to a brothel for sex would you want to know that your partner for sex was practicing safe sex and had STD testing or not?  Heck, I’m so darned fussy that before having sex with a prostitute I’d be asking for all sorts of verification …
     
    Is a primitive culture be closer to libertarian ideals?  They have structure thru bartering and know that it benefits them to care for all members of their community.  Of course they have no “government” regulations but unwritten codes of conduct.  Even in primitive cultures, a human being isn’t entirely free. For us to really know how well a libertarian government will fare, we’ll need to watch the island experiment over the next several decades.  So let’s keep our discussion within the framework of how our US society lives today and try to advance it one step at a time.  So I remain grounded in that I’d like to see legalized prostitution and legalized drugs, but for both we need regulation, just as I (we) need regulation for air travel, medical services etc, financial advice etc.  Regulation and disclosure comes about because of cheats.  With Sandusky’s behavior, I expect Penn State will change their procedure to make sure another Sandusky doesn’t easily surface.  And, yes the government doesn’t need to regulate Sandusky BUT if the catholic church (and I believe other religions are doing the same thing) and universities CAN’T or WON’T protect our children then, yes, I believe the government might need to interfere to PROTECT our children.  Maybe we need to lose some fundamental rights.  And, I see where you’ll go with this, because if I give up one single fundamental right, will I eventually be in a box with NO fundamental rights.  So, balance, we need balance in our government and I don’t feel the libertarian perspective would balance (at least not in the short term).  Babe

    • Tip O’Neill

      Let me offer a different perspective – not libertarian but “liberal”.
       
      >”and think about our society as it is today.  ” 

      Today, in the real world of Tucson, prostitutes are easily available and everyone knows it. Ditto drugs.

      Making things like that illegal doesn’t make them non-available, the way we pretend such laws do. It just makes them more expensive and dangerous and increases law enforcement costs.

      It seems to me that legalization – along with reasonable regulation and taxation just as we do with every other product or service – is the best real world solution.
       

      • Pacific Babe

        Ditto! Babe

      • jason

        Per my response to PB – I totally agree. If an initiative was on the ballot to legalize & regulate & tax prostitution & drugs I would absolutely vote for it.

    • jason

      “If YOU and I mean YOU decided to head to a brothel for sex would you want to know that your partner for sex was practicing safe sex and had STD testing or not?”

      Absolutely. To bring it down to something I’ve actually done, when I head to a restaurant to eat I want to know the food is prepared with good hygiene. Just as when I go to a friend’s house for dinner, I want to know the food is prepared with good hygiene.

      So why is it that we need government health inspectors for restaurant kitchens but not the kitchens of people inviting their friends over for dinner? This is primarily an information and reputation problem – if you give your friends food poisoning, the consequences to your reputation are much more severe and permanent than to a restaurant. The internet is a partial solution at this point – we’re not yet to the point where an internet review will shut down a restaurant faster than the county health department. But we’re getting there.

      I’ve said before that libertarianism is a process. There’s a tendency, spurred by a lot of libertarian rhetoric, to envision the cart coming before the horse. Keeping with the restaurant example, I don’t advocate that we shut down the county health department, let a lot of people get food poisoning and then sort it all out with internet reviews. Rather, I advocate that we use internet reviews to make the county health department so irrelevant that shutting it down becomes the obvious logical choice. And I advocate for government policies that are open to such change (i.e. systems that don’t entrench bureaucracies and make them hard to shut down when they are no longer needed).

      Would we be better off with legalized, heavily regulated prostitution than the current state of affairs? Absolutely. Would we be even better if the regulation was by reputation and review based rather than government enforced? I think so, but the infrastructure to support that would have to be in place first and it’s not today.

      “Is a primitive culture be closer to libertarian ideals?”

      Yes and no – mostly no. It’s only “yes” in the sense that primitive cultures didn’t have distant government rulers telling them what they could and could not do. But primitive cultures lacked both a well developed conception of rights and the institutions to protect those rights that libertarianism requires. Getting your way with violence was widely accepted in primitive cultures – an anathema to libertarian ideals. Primitive cultures were also very heirarchical and sexist and racist, all of which libertarianism is completely opposed to.

      “I believe the government might need to interfere to PROTECT our children.”

      Child molestation is already a crime, and libertarianism* would do nothing to change that. Murder, rape, theft, and fraud are other crimes that libertarians would treat essentially as they are today. At some point I think we’ll come up with a better mechanism than government to deal with crime in general, but until then it is the government’s role to prosecute crimes like child molestation.

      *=There is a small and generally excluded subset of libertarians who claim that a child of any age can consent to anything, including sex or lifetime slavery. They do not represent my views nor the views of most libertarians.

      “So, balance, we need balance in our government and I don’t feel the libertarian perspective would balance (at least not in the short term).”

      Then riddle me this, PB: I suggested that the rational thing to do is as I did in the 2010 election: vote for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians based on the race, the candidate, and the expected electoral outcome. Your response was to suggest always voting a straight Democrat ticket. When it comes to real world choices, I do work for balance or more specifically, the best possible outcome which balance generally gives. Why do you not advocate for balance in real world decision making like voting?

      If you don’t know where you’re going, any path will get you there. Knowing where you want to go is not “utopian” as long as you try to get there on a path of progress not regress. Every step should make things better, not worse.

      • Pacific Babe

        Jason, thank you again b/c I thoroughly enjoy reading your perspective.  My answer isn’t to suggest that anyone other than me always vote a straight ticket for Democrats.  I wouldn’t want that.  I vote that way simply because I feel this country (having grown up in Canada) needs to move further to the left.  Once it gets to where I’d like to see it, then I am more likely to vote for any party that I feel will maintain it.
         
        Rather, I advocate that we use internet reviews to make the county health department so irrelevant that shutting it down becomes the obvious logical choice.  This is happening before our eyes.  If you remember I wrote (using the internet) to the Atty General’s office with a complaint about a local company.  Yesterday, they delivered me a check for all money I’ve spent with them and asked me to sign a release, which I was happy to do.  What was interesting is that the rep who came to my door said that it was access to the internet that brought the company down fast.  While it was not apparent to me, it literally collapsed within a few months due to complaints to the BBB, the Attorney General’s Office and reviews on the internet.  With their new management who I’ve talked to, I am betting the company will make really significant improvements.
         

        • jason

          “I feel this country (having grown up in Canada) needs to move further to the left.”

          Don’t take this the wrong way – but if you think Canada is so much better then why’d you leave? I ask, in part because I just made a very difficult decision to turn down an offer of a permanent transfer to New Zealand. There’s a lot about America I don’t like, and a lot about New Zealand that I like. My decision, ultimately, was based on factors other than politics. However, had I taken that transfer I can tell you for sure the very last thing I’d ever try to do is make New Zealand more like the United States. Why do you want to make the United States more like Canada?

          Then there’s the whole “further to the left”. That’s very nebulous and covers a lot of ground. The whole left-right dichotomy seems to have been created simply to keep politicians in power – it forces people to make a choice between having more control over their personal lives and less control over their economic lives (“left wingers”) or vice-versa (“right wingers”). I want the country to move away from empowering elites, politicians, and bureaucrats and towards greater personal and economic freedom. Sometimes that’s “left”, sometimes “right”.

          • Pacific Babe

            Jason: but if you think Canada is so much better then why’d you leave?  I fell in love with an American.  I’d like the US to move further to the left particularly when it comes to social issues… ie, gay marriage, socialized medicine, easier end of life decisions, abortion etc.  I haven’t resolved in my head the gun issue yet. Percentage wise, there are more atheists in Canada and I am assuming that’s led to the liberal positions on social issues.  The Cdn financial industry is better regulated. Canada hasn’t suffered the foreclosures we have and their RE pricing continues to move forward, although they are predicting that will soon change.  I keep watching RE prices in Canada and there’s a possibility I will return.  However, I prefer the weather here and my friends.  The areas that I would choose in Canada are highly religious with a small network of atheists.  While I’d enjoy the views, I would not like the religious zealots with narrow views that would be neighbors. Babe

  • Pacific Babe

    Anon 3:  Please enlighten me with what dictionary you use that says sin and immorality are interchangeable.  Babe

  • Tip O’Neill

    >We have the choice whether to look at porn or not, and we have the choice even when looking at it to think of something that counteracts its effects.

    Actually your brain will make that choice, and what it chooses will be determined by the laws of biology and environment ,just like everything else in the world.
    Even that asteroid with “free will”
     
    At least that is what all experimental evidence points to. 

    • jason

      Yeah that’s the argument we’ll get back to eventually.

      Funny thing is, to understand this better I’m arguing against free will on the Beginning of Infinity list – when I’m not doing other things including this blog. :-) If you care to follow along, you may find the discussion interesting:
      http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/browse_thread/thread/b9aec8a14b41757a

      • Tip O’Neill

        I took a look – but I have found anything to do with philosophy to be mental masturbation. I prefer science.

        Look at it this way – you are making an extraordinary claim for the existence of something which is not subject to the laws of nature – don’t you think such a claim require some experimental proof ?

        You aren’t alone in this – most people make the same claim – and for a very good reason. All of our experience seems to show us that “we” make decisions – we even seem to struggle making them. So it’s hard to believe, or even understand, that free will is an illusion.

        You can’t come to terms with it until you have a better understanding of consciousness – and come to realize that “you” is the real illusion ;)  

        • jason

          “I have found anything to do with philosophy to be mental masturbation.”

          Much of it is, particularly the academic varieties. But everyone has a philosophy of some sort, and it’s worth understanding it enough to make the ideas explicit and subject to criticism.

          “you are making an extraordinary claim for the existence of something which is not subject to the laws of nature ”

          It’s statements like this that have me thinking you really don’t understand what I’m claiming, as distinct from what religionists are claiming. I do not claim that free will is not subject to the laws of nature, any more than an atom of copper at the tip of the nose on a statue of Churchill is not subject to the laws of nature*.

          “come to realize that “you” is the real illusion ”

          Conscious, like free will, is an emergent property. If emergence in general is an illusion, then it takes down both free will and consciousness simultaneously. Neither is prior.

          *=From Deutsch, The Fabric Of Reality :
          Consider one particular copper atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill that stands in Parliament Square in London. Let me try to explain why that copper atom is there. It is because Churchill served as prime minister in the House of Commons nearby; and because his ideas and leadership contributed to the Allied victory in the Second World War; and because it is customary to honour such people by putting up statues of them; and because bronze, a traditional material for such statues, contains copper, and so on. Thus we explain a low-level physical observation – the presence of a copper atom at a particular location – through extremely high-level theories about emergent phenomena such as ideas, leadership, war and tradition.

          There is no reason why there should exist, even in principle, any lower-level explanation of the presence of that copper atom than the one I have just given. Presumably a reductive ‘theory of everything’ would in principle make a low-level prediction of the probability that such a statue will exist, given the condition of (say) the solar system at some earlier date. It would also in principle describe how the statue probably got there. But such descriptions and predictions (wildly infeasible, of course) would explain nothing. They would merely describe the trajectory that each copper atom followed from the copper mine, through the smelter and the sculptor’s studio and so on…In fact such a prediction would have to refer to atoms all over the planet, engaged in the complex motion we call the Second World War, among other things. But even if you had the superhuman capacity to follow such lengthy predictions of the copper atom’s being there, you would still not be able to say ‘Ah yes, now I understand why they are there’. [You] would have to inquire into what it was about that configuration of atoms, and those trajectories, that gave them the propensity to deposit a copper atom at this location. Pursuing that inquiry would be a creative task, as discovering new explanations always is. You would have to discover that certain atomic configurations support emergent phenomena such as leadership and war, which are related to one another by high-level explanatory theories. Only when you knew those theories could you understand why that copper atom is where it is.

          :

          • Tip O’Neill

            >Conscious, like free will, is an emergent property. If emergence in general is an illusion, then it takes down both free will and consciousness simultaneously. 

            See – that’s what philosophy does to your head. You think you can wave around magic words like “emergent property”  and not be held to the laws of science or logic.
             
            I’m not aware of any physical laws that would state that it was impossible for a bit of copper to be on a statue.

            You may as well say that god was an “emergent property” so you didn’t need to prove his existence.

             

            • jason

              “I’m not aware of any physical laws that would state that it was impossible for a bit of copper to be on a statue.”

              Right, just as there are no physical laws that state that it is impossible for me to do any particular act that I’ve done. The issue is explaining why – why is the bit of copper on the statue, and why did I do the act that I did?
               
              “Emergent property” is part of the explanation. It is not a magic word and it does not contradict the laws of science or logic.

              “You may as well say that god was an “emergent property” so you didn’t need to prove his existence.”

              I see you read some of the arguments I posted on the BoI list. Either that or we just happened to think along the same lines.

              • Tip O’Neill

                > The issue is explaining why – why is the bit of copper on the statue, and why did I do the act that I did?

                You may not be able to fully explain why a particular atom wound up in a particular place or why you made a particular decision – because of the complexity of the forces involved and billions of variables.

                But you can be sure that in the atoms travels it always obeyed the laws of nature, and in your brain processing the decision it followed the laws of biology – neither could have “decided” to be anywhere else or decide differently.

                You are confusing complexity with free will. Your brain is a biological organ and it functions just like all of your other organs – it can no more “decide” other than it does that your heard can “decide” to pump backwards just for kicks.
                 

                • jason

                  We’re going in circles, perhaps because one or both of us is too emotional about the matter of free will for a healthy discussion. I’m not saying it’s not me – it could be – there’s a lot tied to it.

                  So how about we talk about prime numbers: Do prime numbers exist, or are they an illusion?

                  • Tip O’Neill

                    You have been hanging around philosophers too much – they have always, since Aristotle confused ideas with physical reality. “Love” is a “Thing” it “exists” because I can think of it etc… mental masturbation.

                    I think you aren’t quite understanding what I mean by “illusion”.

                    Let’s put it this way – your brain controls your body, makes decisions, moves etc. It is magnificently complex but is still a biological organ which has evolved and which functions according to biological laws. 
                    The “illusion” you have ( and we all do ) is that it is “you” that are deciding to make another futile posting.
                    It isn’t “you” – it is your brain. “You” ( your conscious awareness) is actually observing and recording  what your brain is deciding, and you are under the illusion that “you” are giving orders – actually “you” are just recording what your brain has already “decided”.
                     

                    • jason

                      Do prime numbers exist or not?

                      I really do want to know your opinion on that matter, since we seem to agree that further discussion of free will is “futile”.

    • Anon 3

      “At least that is what all experimental evidence points to. ”

      What experiments are these? 

  • Pacific Babe

    For Anon3 …It’s Joe Nocero’s latest column in the NYT’s http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/opinion/nocera-the-institutional-pass.html?_r=1&ref=joenocera

    Out of the article, this is my favorite comment “Describing Paterno as a devout Catholic was McAneney’s way of saying that his friend was still a good and decent man”.  Paterno is every bit as guilty as Sandusky, just as you are every bit as guilty in the complicit actions that causes gays to commit suicide and women to use a coathanger!  Over my career, I’ve continually watched as christians have been given free passes by their fellow clan members and it’s time it stopped.  It’s a bad cult with a low bar set on morality.  Babe

    • Anon 3

      “ Paterno is every bit as guilty as Sandusky, just as you are every bit as guilty in the complicit actions that causes gays to commit suicide and women to use a coathanger! ”
      What am I guilty of?  A sin, perhaps?

  • wendy

    The Humanist Hour podcast posted in June deals with the topic of religion and sex.  Dr. Darrel Ray is interviewed about a study he performed.
    http://podcast.thehumanist.org/2011/06/the-humanist-hour-63-sex-and-secularism/