Of all the areas that the issue of reproductive health has touched I have always considered that population should be removed from the table by virtue of agreement.   There is nothing more annoying than to hear the issue resurface and discussed over and over again.

Now how could I consider both parties agreeing when in the media they seem hell bent on tearing each other’s heads, hopefully not literally. The reason is family planning.  Yes, each side favors its own method: natural in the anti-reproductive health side and artificial for those in favor; but whatever the method, if people calmly think about it, the intent is the same: control.

Family planning is basically controlling the number of children being born to a family.   So it makes no sense to me why any anti-reproductive health advocate would want to argue population when they have already agreed to a method of family planning.   Favoring any method is agreeing that children should be limited or that there should be ample spacing between children.

Without the population argument all that is left is a superficial argument over tools and methods.   People will be judged as pious or condemned as sinners based only on which method they use.

I believe we have a saying for this: “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.  Man is far too complex a being to be judged simplistically.   Skin, religion, race, financial status, possessions – or in this case, tools – should not have any bearing on the goodness of a person.

Let’s a take a pen for example.   I have one, a Parker at that, and I have glasses, but that does not necessarily mean that I am a writer. It doesn’t make me sinister or violent either, but I have to ask, is it justified?

As for my Parker pen, I have to say I like its size and weight compared to the plastic ones or the silver Parker pen of some years ago.   It feels denser than the silver models.   Simple physics can tell you that I can impale anyone’s head or puncture someone’s jugular without a problem should I want to use it as such. And with it being in my shirt pocket it is easy to use.

With that being said, can I still be judged as a meek intellectual? Would people still tell me if I exceeded my commas or misused a semicolon? Perhaps people still would, but more carefully now.

How about a weapon, say a pistol, will it be different since its only use is to cause harm?

If I walked around the mall with a gun bulging at the back of my pants, wearing maong, rubber shoes, and maybe for dramatic effect a Che Guevara T-shirt, people would  most likely run away in a stampede because my attire gives out the signals I was up to no good.  But if I wore a police uniform which matches my enormous belly, people wouldn’t run; in fact, they might even ask me for directions.

In both cases, from a tool predominantly harmless to an outright deadly weapon, judgment depended a great deal on my (presumed) intent.  Now why is intent suddenly irrelevant with regards to reproductive health? A couple is judged to be pious when natural family planning is used and condemned as sinners when they use artificial.

What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch?   The intent is the same!

What’s even crazier is the reason why the natural family planning is considered acceptable.  It is the position of the Church that any method that makes procreation impossible is immoral.   So in effect natural family planning is a method that can fail, which is why it is allowed in the first place.

Let me repeat that. Control and limitations are agreed to by the Church because of endorsing natural family method. They have agreed to a goal and yet they set themselves up to fail.  There must always be a chance for children.

Despite all their recent protestations that condoms do not work the only reason why they do not allow it according to the Humanae Vitae is that it greatly impedes chances of fertilization.

Another thing, those who are only for natural family planning may not be as respectful as they claim to be but are actually disrespectful in a lawyerly sense, playing technicalities with God whom they claim to be all knowing and all powerful.

In paragraph 13 of Humanae Vitae it states, “If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.”

If sex should equal children as God has intended then what is the difference between natural and artificial when it is the intent of both to limit children?  That’s Almighty God, not a Supreme Court judge, is it not?

Why are these supposedly obedient servants playing with words like lawyers? They say they are loyal then they should have avoided the idea of planning altogether.  Why worry when, as they always believe, God will always provide.

So here I am annoyed still seeing the Philippines still in a stalemate that should not be so. The state needs to provide action and yet it sits idly by. Virgins (presumed at least) now dare to lecture couples on marriage and ‘cold turkeys’ when the rule for many other situations might be ‘you don’t make the rules if you don’t play the game’.

What’s worse is that with this year’s election, with all the issues on corruption, economic trouble, human rights, and leadership, the Church recommends that candidates should be chosen because of condoms, of all things.

Why the stalemate? Why do people refuse to take action? Why the sorry state of affairs? Maybe one reason is that people have deluded themselves into seeing communion as a tool in getting to heaven or that they even need the Church to do what is right.

But do these ‘tools’ really make a good man?

Also seen in my blog.

It’s sad reading all this debate between the CBCP and Secretary Cabral on this issue of free condom distribution. Personally, I believe that contraceptives should not be given freely. The secretary is better off distributing free medicines rather than focusing on free contraceptives. There are those who are in dire need of medicines these days.

It is a fact that contraceptives help control booming population and STDs, and foreign financial aids pour into the country supporting initiatives to stop AIDS and overpopulation. However this does not mean that we should take the opportunity to distribute contraceptives freely. That would be helpful for some people but there are those whose sense of morality is stuck in the middle ages who will feel that this act is a violation their moral fiber.

It would be better to give subsidies than contraceptives and appropriate proper education and regulation methods. Contraceptives should be requested and not distributed freely given the available finances. If these contraceptives are duly subscribed and approved by the local health center, paid by the educated user and subsidized by the government, we can have a sense of assurance that the people who will use it have a sense of commitment and ownership. However, if contraceptives are given freely, we cannot be sure whether these contraceptives will be used properly, sold to a third party, or used as water balloons in the next wet ‘n’ wild party. Proper education and regulation should be the first step, not immediate distribution. Or else… the very eager and voracious cookie monster will do the job of educating for the government.

Kidding aside, it is true that the country needs to resolve overpopulation through the use of contraceptives. But, as a wise woman said during one FF convention: “It is not enough that we know that truth. We should hear that truth from the voices of our people.” They should be the ones asking and voicing out their need – not Secretary Cabral, not the CBCP.

And besides, we don’t want spend foreign aid and the tax payers money for the next wet ‘n wild party do we?

To those who actually haven’t googled the term, Wikipedia defines freethought as:

“a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.”

In the FF forum and Facebook page, every once in a while someone oblivious to the standard definition butts in with the assumption that freethinking means setting the mind completely free – unrestrained even by reason, logic or reality. More commonly, people have assumed that freethought is synonymous to atheism.

It is important to note that the free in freethinking only means freedom from dogma imposed by “authority” but not from the rules of logic and the cold test of science. In fact, freethinking is actually a very strict discipline that keeps the mind on its toes, preventing it from jumping into convenient conclusions. Once an argument commits a single logical fallacy, all its conclusions are automatically void; long-held scientific theories are discarded like yesterday’s paper once contradicting evidence is found. (Scientific theory differs from the layman’s definition of theory in the sense that the latter is actually just a hypothesis.)

As such, freethought is a journey where one takes the road paved with science, logic and reason; atheism, agnosticism, deism, and even philosophical theism are just the destinations, none of them final. This may come as a surprise, but while the majority of the vocal Filipino Freethinkers are atheists, we do have some members who acknowledge the possibility and even the probability of God to a certain degree but are well aware that all they have are circumstantial evidence and logical arguments, not proof. There are no fundies in Filipino Freethinkers or even strong theists (#1 in Dawkins’ spectrum) who claim not just to believe, but to know that there is a God. Remarkably, there are also no strong atheists (#7 in Dawkins’ spectrum) in Filipino Freethinkers, or at least none have declared being so at the forums. More importantly, our beliefs (or non-belief) matter less than how we arrived at such beliefs (or non-belief). So you’ll never hear the words “because the Bible says so” from a freethinking theist or “because Richard Dawkins says so” from a freethinking atheist.

So what does it mean to be a freethinker? I guess it means being a truthseeker, relentlessly holding on to reason amid powerful forces telling society that blind faith is preferred. The Filipino Freethinkers are sometimes accused of being angry at religion. Well I can’t say that we aren’t, because religion, being very influential, pervading education and politics, has become the embodiment of ignorance and the eternal cause of poverty, overpopulation, and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases while the churches continue to rake in the offerings. And yet they have the guts to say that we are the bad guys.

But how can freethinkers be the bad guys? We never ask people to give up anything - not their money, not their reason, not their freewill, not even their beliefs. Freethought is not telling anyone to believe in a certain freethought doctrine or creed; it is merely asking that we open our eyes and use our minds, to see for ourselves what is right, what is good, and what is true. How bad can that be?

-Ano ka ba naman anak, tingnan mo nga yang suot mo.
–Si Mama talaga, ako na naman ang nakita.
-Hay naku Judith, paano ba namang…
—Hindi ka makikita ni Nanay, eh halos makita na ang kaluluwa mo dyan sa suot mo? Mano po, nay.
-Kaawaan ka ng Diyos. John, samahan mo nga itong kapatid mong…
–MA! Ayokong kasama yan!
-At bakit hindi…
–MA!
-…matagal na ring di mo nakakasama ang kuya mong…
—Nay wag na. Alam niyo namang di na ako nagpupunta dun eh. Naaasar lang ako sa mga tao dun. Puro mga ipokrito.
–Kita niyo na Ma, wala ng pag-asa yang si kuya. Weird and…
—Anlakas naman ng amoy ng pabango mo, ansangsang.
–Masangsang ka diyan. Kaw nga tong amoy pawis kakabasketbol.
-John, magpunas ka na anak at magbihis tapos samahan mo itong kapatid mong…
–MA! —Nay!
-Sya sya. Judith, palitan mo nga yang damit mo…
–Si Mama talaga old-fashioned. Iba na ang panahon ngayon.
—Oo nga Nay. Paano nga naman magpapaligaw yang si Judith kung hindi siya maliligo ng pabango at magpapakita ng laman?
–Eeew!
-Susmaryosep John! Galangin mo naman ang kapatid mo!
—Respect is paid only where it is due.
–Paingles-ingles ka pang nalalaman dyan. UP ka nga di naman nakagraduate.
—Kung gusto mong galangin kita, galangin mo muna ang sarili mo.
-Tama na yan magkapikunan pa kayo. Judith, anak, magpalit ka na…
–MA! Anong oras na! Gusto niyo bang malate ako?
-Hay. Bahala nga kayo sa buhay niyo. John, magpalit ka na ng damit at baka magkasakit ka.
—Opo Nay.
-Judith, mag-iingat ka. At yung pinapabili ko, wag mong kakalimutan.
–Yes Ma. Tatlong tali ng Sampaguita.
.
.
.
–Sige Ma, magsisimba na ako.

Today’s links are a bit of an oddball group.  We have rioting, voodoo, Mexican secularism, WWII, quantum physics (it’s your favorite – infinite regression!), Anglicans converting to Roman Catholicism because of their common intolerance for gays, priests who make sense, condom talk, and nuns affected by the economic recession.  And Palin says something stupid.  You know the drill: send your stories via The News Thread or the comments.  Theme suggestions are also welcome.

=============

More than 500 die in religious riots in Jos, Nigeria (submitted by Frank, via Wikipedia, Peagle) link , link

Fr. Bernas talks about separation of church and state (submitted by innerminds, via inquirer.net) link

Cabral accepts Bishop’s debate challenge (via gmanews.tv) link

Sarah Palin: God wrote on his hand too (via Washington Post) link

Jewish Knight defends Pope Pius XII’s WWII record (via nytimes.com) link

Voodoo practitioners shrug off blame for Haiti quake (via telegraph.co.uk) link

100 Anglican parishes convert to Roman Catholic Church (via telegraph.co.uk) link

Vlatko Vedral: I’d like to explain the origin of God (via The Guardian) link

Mexico’s separation of church and state (via wsj.com) link

Outsourcing a threat to French nuns’ holy industry (via The Guardian) link

NOT the Pope (But definitely better dressed)

Most of you already know I’m a stickler for being (painfully) blunt, so I’ll get right to the point. A few days ago, I stumbled upon a press release from the Vatican announcing an initiative aimed at opening dialogue with atheist and agnostics.

“Firstly, it is to create a network of agnostic or atheistic people who accept dialogue and enter as members into the foundation and, as such, into our dicastery,” stated Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture (PCC), the group in charge of the foundation.

It sounds like a noble gesture, the church wanting to sit down and talk with nonbelievers.

It is also a hollow gesture, in light of the fact that time and time again, the Vatican has attacked various issues we non-theists hold dear in one way or another. If you (the Vatican) are serious about opening dialogue with non-theists, then you’re going to have to explain your actions regarding several prior issues:

What are you planning to do about Bishop Nelson Williamson? Early last year, Pope Ratzinger lifted the Vatican’s excommunication on Bishop Williamson (along with four other bishops), despite the fact that Williamson has continually denied Nazi Germany’s hand in the deaths of close to six million Jews?

Williamson himself stated this same view during an interview on Swedish television, broadcast on the same day that Ratzinger lifted his excommunication.

Speaking of excommunications, you know what else stinks? The fact that only a few months after this, you excommunicated the medical team that performed an emergency abortion on a nine-year-old girl in Brazil. Never mind the fact that this surgery saved her life – you were too caught up spouting your rhetoric on protecting the life of the unborn. What about the child? Doesn’t she matter?

Not only did you excommunicate her mother for allowing the doctors to perform the surgery (and the child too, had she been of proper legal age), but you said nothing about excommunicating the sick bastard of a father who had repeatedly raped her. What do you plan to do with him? Absorb him into your ranks?

Actually, that’s par for the course for your ilk, given the recent reports documenting your priest’s sexual molestation cases against the young in Germany, Britain, and Ireland. Not only did you fail to penalize your clergy, you transferred them to different parishes to prevent their prosecution by local authorities, while resorting to delaying tactics to keep the victims silent for decades.

And when one of your own decided to speak up against you, you silenced him too. Whatever happened to “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?”

And since we’re on the topic of making babies, let’s talk about your stance on reproductive health. You have repeatedly crossed the line in the country I live in, threatening any politician who supported House Bill 5043 with excommunication. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

And whatever happened to common sense as well, given your claim that any form of contraception is automatically a form of abortion, and your insistence that natural family planning is the only proper form of birth control? Never mind that government health departments and accredited health organizations have already confirmed that NFP-only policies result in failure.

What is your issue with women having a choice in the matter and deciding not to have a baby before they’re ready? Actually scratch that – what is your issue with anybody who doesn’t fit your concept of masculinity?

Two years ago, Pope Ratzinger declared that homosexuality was a threat bigger than the destruction of the rainforests. And just last year, he upped the ante by saying that they were an attack on creation. That’s just the tip of the iceberg – there are also the decades that you have actively discriminated against the gay community, treating it as if it were some social evil that must be eradicated (ironic given your own track record with children).

And finally, there is your blatant hostility against atheists and agnostics. Three years ago, your Pope went on public record to say that non-theists were responsible for some of the world’s greatest woes. His statement conveniently forgets your own hand in colorful incidents such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the aforementioned sex abuse cases, and the fact that Hitler himself was Catholic, and was quite vocal in using his own brand of Catholicism to push the Nazi agenda.

Yes - logic kills!

In short, here is what I think: despite your misogynistic views, despite the way you have repeatedly demonized the community I belong to, you still think you have credibility claiming to enter genuine dialogue with us, or that it will eventually help “men and women who don’t believe but want to move towards God.”?

I’m sorry, but I see this offer as nothing more than a poorly done PR stunt – we don’t have any clear reason to trust that you’ll really listen to us. In fact I see this gesture as your attempt at becoming a media darling by “attempting” to open dialogue with us, and playing the martyr card when these talks fail. It’s tantamount to twisting the Italian Government’s arm to have comedian Sabina Guzzanti arrested for her statements against Papa Ratzi. When you realized no charges could be raised against her, you were quick to state that she was not arrested because you “forgave” her.

What a load of crock. What bullshit. It’s for this very reason that this is all I have to say to you regarding your offer (Warning: Explicit Language at the click!)…

I stumbled upon this article and found this:

There are three truths which must be accepted at the beginning of any investigation into the problem of knowledge and truth:

• The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”
• The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”
• The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”

These primary truths cannot be “proved” by a positive demonstration because they are presupposed and involved in every demonstration. They are so evident that any attempt to doubt or deny them would already mean they have been affirmed and accepted. They are, therefore, fully grounded in reason and no reasonable person can dispute them consistently.

To some it might sound like circular reasoning, but these truths are indeed self-evident in any logical discussion. Let’s see:

• The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”

The fact that we are able to read this proves the first fact. Now what more proof do we need in order to know that we are reading this indeed? Is that circular reasoning?

• The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”

Of course. Otherwise, something can be both true and false at the same time in the same respect. If that’s the case, then there is no longer any point in logical discussions because anything can be right and wrong at the same time, so everybody is just wasting time. And this goes hand in hand with:

• The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”

And that’s why we are here at Filipino Freethinkers, to discover truth through Reason. (We appreciate theists who check their dogmas upon entering the site, because doctrine and ‘authority’ have no influence here. But those who don’t believe in reason are wasting their time here and it would be better spent praying for divine enlightenment.)

On the other hand, religion only subscribes to the First Fact (our existence), but not to the First Principle (contradiction) and the First Condition (intellect’s ability to discover truth). Religious dogmas have so many contradictions that are conveniently answered by “our minds are too finite to grasp God’s infinite wisdom”.

As freethinkers, we know that belief is no longer a matter of choice, but of conclusion; no matter how the religious (including our parents) try to proselytize, as long as what they preach is unscientific, illogical, or irrational, they cannot force us to believe. Well the most they could do is to make us (falsely) claim belief. We do not choose to be atheists, agnostics, or deists; we just become, most likely as a result of freethinking.

Now the question is, do we choose to become freethinkers? Is it a matter of choice when we base our beliefs on science, logic, and reason instead of authority, tradition, or dogma? Or is it a matter of conclusion (same with becoming atheists, agnostics, or deists)? I think it’s the latter, when we realize that science, logic, and reason are more reliable in terms of finding the truth than authority, tradition, or dogma, but I would like to hear other points of view. How do people become freethinkers in the first place?

And with this we invite everyone to write. We’ve been coming up with fewer articles lately but that’s probably because of the film fest, after which there will be a lot to write about.

I remember a Darwinian article in Time (Asia) Magazine’s special issue, The New Age of Discovery (January, 1998) because it tried to answer questions like why do we find certain human body figures sexy. It said that most men find a specific waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of women sexy (now I won’t tell the exact figure to avoid causing unnecessary insecurities) because that ratio signals fertility. Men don’t consciously know this, but evolution somehow programmed it in our instincts to ensure the perpetuation of our genes.

In another article, I read about an experiment on human scent. It involved a certain number of men and an equal number of women. The men were made to shower using only unscented soap (no cologne or deodorant either) and sleep with a white shirt on. They would shower again on the second night but would wear the same shirt to bed. Then the shirts would be sniffed by the women, who would each try to determine which shirt smells the “sexiest”. After their genes were tested, it was found out that the sexiest scents for most of the women belonged to the men whose genes were very much dissimilar from theirs. Parents with diverse genes often bear stronger offspring, and once again evolution has hardwired this into our physiology to help us find a suitable mate – and perpetuate our genes.

But in this overpopulated modern society of ours, procreation is no longer the primarily purpose of sex. In one of our joint articles, a fellow freethinker wrote:

Sex may lead to pro-creation but the two are still two totally distinct acts, no matter how much some belief systems may insist that they’re one and the same. When you start a fire, you aren’t obligated to go cook something. Sometimes, it’s enough just to enjoy the warmth of a blazing fire on a cold night. The same goes for sex. It’s a social activity and a recreational sport as well. From a liberal point of view, it’s not even that different from a couple going dancing (that’s why it’s also called the horizontal tango).

Still, our instincts kick in when a genetically suitable specimen from the opposite gender walks by even if having kids is the last thing on our minds. But as we get to know a person, after a while we get attracted to non-physical traits like kindness and a sense of humor. Perhaps we instinctively know that certain personal attributes are preferable for long-term companionship, especially when it comes to the point when procreation and even sex are no longer possible.

But the beauty of these personal qualities is that they can be enjoyed now as much as in the future. Being the most highly evolved among all creatures, humans interact in ways beyond touching and smelling. A nice conversation connects us more profoundly than two chimps grooming each other. Although touching is nice, it is often meaningless unless coupled with an emotional bond. And so while evolution already dictated what we should find physically attractive, it is our longing for a deeper connection that needs to be satisfied if we are to truly enjoy being human.

Happy Valentines everyone!

This constant battle can exact a huge toll. I sometimes wonder where all these arguments came from and why I couldn’t have just avoided them.

There is a huge difference between a fundamentalist and a free thinker in this battle for ideas: the fundamentalists are trying control everyone else, the freethinkers want to be involved with the processes of making a world where they can be happier.

My claim that fundamentalists are trying to control stems from the pattern closer inspection of their behavior reveals. The pattern that emerges is mostly concerned about imposing their will on what is “theirs”. There is a gross amount of egocentric rationalization and not any allocentrism in the pattern of behavior. Strangely this control quickly extends to thoughts, words, and Ideas. It even gets more apparent when anecdotes of the extreme just confirm the overwhelming opinion.

The anecdote of the woman who complained to a school that the dictionary contained an offensive definition, the constant attacks on secularism, and the moral superiority are all patterns of control. One particular degree of control that gets really irrational is the easily offended sensibilities, when they consider themselves immune to criticism.

As much as they are free to criticize people who deviate from their arbitrary sensibilities, they don’t seem to realize this goes both ways. They don’t see that relative to other people, they are different and subject to the same criticism.

It’s funny to see someone who criticizes other people’s beliefs take offense when they are criticized. There is that very subjective and arbitrary moral point of view in action. It’s quite interesting to see someone who assumes that people who agree with him/her have a perfectly homogeneous point of view.

The delusional, those who think they are above criticism, don’t appreciate the world of the freethinker. A world where if everyone is free to criticize each other, one better have some good answers to why they do what they do. There are no cop outs and no argumentum vericundum.  The world of the Freethinker is hard; even if he/she can fire a better argument back, there is just few of him/her surrounded by multiple opposition and barriers. Even if their arguments are better crafted and honed after long experiences in the “battlefield”, they can be rendered instantly useless by those who have compartmentalized or isolated reason into one small aspect of their mind.

Living in blissful irrationality is really a choice not everyone is willing to give up. In a pragmatic view: if it’s easier, why not do it? Unfortunately, it is the irrational adherence and diligence to reason and some degree of altruism that cause free thinkers to be masochists or have a strong resistance to hyperbolic discounting.

It is easy to give up, and that option is always open; it would be so much easier than hitting one’s head against a brick wall of crazies. Unfortunately, irrationality only brings freethinkers further into the battle through escalation of commitment, which both sides suffer.

So what is a freethinker ought to do? On this, I go to Sun Tzu:

“A general does what he needs to do, regardless of what it may appear”.

It’s hard not to let the same irrationality controlling the crazies get the better of oneself. It is best to break off, even if it would make one appear weak. Then proceed to save strength, rally mental forces and proceed with a different plan of attack.

The Freethinker is powerless or less helpful when burned out. It would be ideal that he/she chooses the battles better, take into account war weariness and start having and developing an exit strategy.

Looking at constructive methodology from Qualia Soup: starting off constructive statements has a built-in exit strategy. The second the other side stops being reasonable, it’s a quick, clean and easy termination. It follows the same principle of preparation through conditioning and a well-thought approach.  Since it does take some time to dig up the empirical data, there is an implied proposition of the amount of work needed to come up with an objective conclusion: allowing people to make the practical decision if they have time to really undertake that data gathering needed.

Imagine only having to deal with constructive statements. Instead of a wide angle search, you can begin with a more narrow and easily defined search parameter. There is no “opinion” – just facts and data. It’s like looking over a math formula to check if it was done right. Wouldn’t that be so much easier than escalating into argument where emotions begin to color the exchange of information?

Rest for the Weary, comes from working smarter.