Innate religious skepticism in children

Unprompted, a four year old used an argument taught to first year philosophy students.

He's been learning about god and Jesus at school, it's that time of year. It seems he's skeptical. 

"If god made everything" he said, out of the blue "then what made god?".

It is the classic refutation to the first cause argument for god's existence. I didn't have an answer (nobody does) so I said that I'm sure his teachers would enjoy explaining it all to him and he should ask them, when the donkey and stable business comes up again.

Problem with this first cause thing is that it applied to physics too. Big bangs out of nowhere makes as little sense as sudden men in clouds.

The other arguments

The other arguments that philosophy of religion students are taught are the problem of evil and the watch maker. Here they are.

If god is all powerful, all knowing and good; then why is there evil? If he's not some of those things then he's not much of a god.

It takes a very clever man to make a watch. People are much more complicated than watches, in fact it's amazing that we can see, think and do whatever complex organs do. So whatever made people, walruses and onions must be pretty much god. 

The best refutation of this I read is from Richard Dawkins who points out that this is like saying a puddle is really smart for fitting exactly in the hole. We are complicated because we've adapted to survive. If we were rubbish we wouldn't be here, like the puddles that aren't.

Innate skepticism then; healthy, human.         

In praise of specifics

On writing courses they will teach to you, that to make writing come alive, you should write for as specific an audience and subject as possible. Write for the one-legged Eskimo about the 10.37am tea break. 

This holds for other aspects of life too.

The music goes round on radio 2 (Desmond Carrington) might be an hour of German language pop (and nothing recent either) which entertains me so much more than Absolute's focus grouped generica.

Place a personal ad for moth enthusiasts in Bolton and you'll be stepping out with a lady on Friday night. Describe yourself tall with GSOH and no-one will reply. It's not about being wacky, it's about being specific.

No football fan will watch a champions league game full of superstars if a relegation scrap between AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons is on the other side.

Specific Jim

I think there's a strong case that specifics are more interesting. Yet, there's a cautious drive that tends us to be generic. 'Thanks for your copy Mr Socks, we'll just bland it for the everyman.'

Now normally I link my observations back to a proper philosopher but I don't know of any in this case ( do let me know if you know of any). So I'll name the idea myself. I'll call it Specific Jim after my nickname for my boy who knows very precisely how things ought to be. 

 

Never read signs

I've found another philosophical justification for one of my grumpy tendencies.

I've decided to not read signs. It is not just the bad grammar (that needless capital letter or that apostrophe). It is that I have found, on the whole, that they tell you nothing that you couldn't decide on your own using your own common sense or common courtesy.

Laminated diktat 

Would you run headlong towards the cliff edge if the sign hadn't warned me? Throwing a child off a slide head first with his arms tied to his side might be in your scheme of sensible behaviour but I suspect you'd make the right call regardless of the helpful bullet point list from the authorities. 

If you have ever taken a thermos flask and sarnies into a cafe and tucked in without buying any of their food, you are a bit odd, I wouldn't need that specified to me by laminated diktat.

You can make these calls yourself and save yourself the time of reading the sign.

Weber - the steel cage

Weber had spotted that modern life and its institutions had become rule bound. That bureaucracies formed around institutions and with them brought their own procedures. From a company's HR team to a state's tax regime. Sport need rules but its joy is suffocated by an ever expanding list of micro-rules.

You can't escape these structures. The interesting observation that came with it was that following procedures came to replace making personal moral judgements. Follow the rules and you don't need to make a choice. It's easier.

He called this the steel cage of bureaucracy (usually mistranslated as iron cage). 

I heard an old timer policeman on the radio bemoaning the young plods for being unable to exercise judgement, instead being bound to the rulebook. He might have given the biscuit thief a warning, the newbies will literally lay down the law.

Isn't it better to think through your own moral judgements? Unthinking morality is less valuable and slavish rule following always leads to the Somme and the gulag. 

Apologise after 

A brilliant rule of thumb is to just apologise afterwards. If your own common courtesy compass leads to conflict with parky, saying sorry once is still quicker than having to spend hours reading signs.

I can't find a thinker who has worked this up though. So this folk morality isn't the territory of this blog, even though it works.

Do I need to say don't ignore road signs? No because your own judgement will have concluded driving on the right hand side of the road (UK) is stupid. 

I trust that you are nice, do what you think is right in the park.