My Letter Regarding The National ID Program

By Daniel Miessler on May 12th, 2007: Tagged as General

This is what I sent my congressman. It’s quite easy; the only thing stopping you from writing is a silly little mental block. I ask you to overcome it.

Greetings Sir, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose the National ID initiative that’s being pushed under the guise of an anti-terror measure. I’m sure you’re well-versed in all the arguments, so I won’t go down the path of repeating any of them. I will simply say that I am strongly opposed to the plan because it’s wholly un-American. If someone wants to debate whether it should be *made* American, and that we should drastically change our country’s philosophy for reason x — well I’d have a lot of respect for that. I may disagree, but I’d respect it. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead this is just happening behind the scenes because our country is too ignorant to pay attention. And perhaps that’s a just punishment — that we become a police state because we became too stupid to defend what our country used to stand for. But I’d like to go on the record as being against it, and I’d very much appreciate it if you would represent my opinion (and the many others out here who share it) when you have the opportunity to do so. Kind regards, -Daniel Miessler
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 17 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    very inspiring post. i'll admit that i played the "i don't care about this stupid country" card for a couple of years. my logic was the result of frustrations with the way i saw our country's leaders sidelining the REAL problems of our time with attention grabbing media created "problems". sustainability has taken a backseat to the D.C. Madam's horny client list. 2008 is the first presidential election I'm old enough to vote in and I plan on making my vote count.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello,
    You appeal to freedom. Thus I stall post this here as well. I ask how you can attempt to believe that we all need to believe in an atheist religion, for that is what any belief creates, and yet call to freedom. I am sorry, but I see hypocrisy and duplicity in your appeal. I could understand and respect a call to agnosticism, as this would be logcially consistant with this appeal. I can not see a fundimesntalist belief inm aethism alligned with this call for freedom.

    Your statements are logicall incompatible and you call for different ends. A right for freedom is a right to believe or not as one wishes.

    I can understand both religion and agnosticism. As a scientist, mathematician and engineer however, I can not grasp atheism. There are two logical alternatives, belief and no belief. There are a large range of belief types. Both religion itself and atheism are religious belief structures.

    Atheism is the belief that nothing exists. That there is definitively no God, higher power etc. This is a belief in a lack of a God and is thus still a belief. An agnostic on the other hand chooses not to believe – and requires (at least to a level) proof.

    How can you logically state that there is nothing when you have no proof and yet try to convince people that your belief is founded on a logical assertion? This is a statement that is unproven and undefined. It remains logically open and to be an atheist is a logic anathema.

    To take the two alternative sides, agnostics choose not to believe. They neither believe in the existence of God and nor do they believe in the absence of a God. They simply trust quantitative proofs and leave the unanswered questions. They seek not to define the undefinable. This is logically consistent with their outlook on life and is reflective in their credence.

    Alternatively, there are those who believe. In many cases this is a simple belief. It is untested and based on a faith that is a rejection of their parents or peers or an unexplored grasping acceptance of them. I shall however concentrate on the few how choose a belief structure on diligent self-awareness.

    In choosing to either believe or not, there is no logical foundation or basis. In separating the believer or the agonistic, the level of self-awareness and contemplative thought is all that should determine the worthiness of their convictions. Without proof, none of us has a right or obligation to make others believe as we do. We have only our actions to turn people to our credos. Anything else is forced implication of a thought structure that belies the taking of the right and privilege of the freedom of our own belief.

    This is wrong whether the person is an atheist or religious zealot. It is in either case a controlling impasse that leads nowhere.

    Fundamental atheism is just as bad and any other type of fundamental thought. The imposed assertion that all people need to think the same belief and thought is wrong. I would ask how can you support this view and still protest freedom?

    I would state that the biggest enemy to freedom and free thought and creativity is hypocrisy. This is true for the fundamentalist everywhere, be they atheist, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Taoist …..

    Regards,
    Craig
    • ^
    • v
    Hello,
    You appeal to freedom (As psoted in a similar response) leads me to ask how you can attempt to believe that we all need to believe in an atheist religion, for that is what any belief creates, and yet call to freedom. I am sorry, but I see hypocrisy and duplicity in your appeal. I could understand and respect a call to agnosticism, as this would be logcially consistant with this appeal. I can not see a fundimesntalist belief inm aethism alligned with this call for freedom.

    Your statements are logicall incompatible and you call for different ends. A right for freedom is a right to believe or not as one wishes.

    I would state that the biggest enemy to freedom and free thought and creativity is hypocrisy. This is true for the fundamentalist everywhere, be they atheist, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Taoist …..

    Regards,
    Craig
    • ^
    • v
    Craig, the reason for your confusion is because you don't understand atheism. Consider that the more elite a scientist one is the more likely they are to identify as an atheist. Specifically, you have general population --> then regular scientists --> then elite scientists. As you go from left to right, more and more of them call themselves atheists. There's a reason for that.

    http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/
    • ^
    • v
    Craig, again...atheism is simply rejecting these other beliefs. If there wasn't a deluge of mass delusion in the world then there wouldn't even be a word for atheist.

    And no, atheism isn't a religion. If atheism were a religion then NOT collecting stamps would be a hobby.
    • ^
    • v
    Daniel, religion is a shared association of convictions and belief. Atheism does actually fulfil the requirements for this definition and was considered a reigion at the time of its conception.

    I understand atheism extremely well. I have done an extended study of this topic. As for your protestation that more advanced scientists are atheists. Actually, 42% of western scientists with PhD's are Christians.

    Stephen Hawkings attends an Anglican Church most weekends. Actually, Athesit scientists are statistically the minority.

    Not being a fundimentalist is not the same as having a belief.

    I suggest that you look at the research and not the journalistis news reports on the research. I have found that FEW journalsist report scientific reports well.

    Craig
    • ^
    • v
    As a post-script, the reserach has demonstrated that belief is not impacted through education, rather it is reduced along the lines of wealth. The more money one has the less likely one is to believe.
    • ^
    • v
    The argument that you make in respect of Lepricorns is not directly related. To be an atheist, you have to believe that there is nothing that has influenced the creation of the universe and all that is in it.

    You are asserting a belief that it came into existence from itself. The alternative that there is a force that creates Universes is a Deist belief. The range of Deist belief goes from a primal force that creates endless streams of Universes in n Infinite multiverse leaving us to the anthromorphic principle that we are here to wonder as we are here. This range of belief goes up to the belief in an uninterested sentient creator that has no further interest in its creation.

    You state no doubt can be associated with a belief in a negative. This is not true. There is no proof and thus it is a belief, there is no rational manner to test either hypothesis.

    As for Gods of Mt. Olympus, Aristocles (or as commonly called Plato) talked of a greater and over-aching “God” creator who really moulded the universe and the but was of no relevance to daily life as “it” did not interact with the world.

    As for Lepricons, they are a testable hypothesis. They are not the same as a question as to existence and nor does it relate. They are not a religious fixture, but one of mythology. While there is much mythology in religion, the two are not categorically the same.

    You claim atheism is not a belief. This however goes against the grain of what is a belief. You state something as a fact. In agnostic thought, one does not choose to believe either way; an atheist however makes a positive assertion. An assertion that they are correct in that there is nothing else. This is an irrational proof as it is a proof that can not be proven and thus a belief.

    You will find that many of those claimed to be atheists are in fact Deists. One such is Thomas Paine. He created the “Age of Reason” and disavowed nationalised church or religion. Paine styled himself a “deist” and hurled some rather uncomplimentary epithets against the Christian religion. He was still not an atheist and this is a similar view of many of those who are styled as atheists in history.

    Others such as John Adams, Albert Camus, Marquis de Sade and Jean-Paul Sartre who are claimed as being atheists were either Deists or Agnostics. Many had stated this and publicly disavowed atheism, they in many cases did not wish to speculate, this is not the same thing.

    Jean-Paul Sartre was a French existentialist philosopher. He was not per say an atheist, but believed (and founded) the existentialist movement.

    As for not understanding atheism, I think that you have not taken the time to read up on it yourself. I was strongly atheist for a number of years and have read most of the discourses on the topic. I have studied the works of Varro Reatinus, Epicurus, Gallus Petronius, Protagoras, Anaxagoras and Anaxagoras from a classical perspective.

    On a more modern note I have studied Sartre, Popper, Marx, Sigmund Freud and Denis Diderot. I have studied this at a doctoral level, so I would care to choose to state that I “believe” that I have some knowledge on the topic.

    One of the issues with atheism is that it groups agnosticism and Deism in with itself as if sees fit but refuses to accept the associated precepts of this as a faith. Some such as Bertrand Russell have formulated a structure for their belief that has a basis on valid reasoning, but they are the minority. Most atheists, however, just choose to do this to be against the tide.

    I have no interest in changing your belief. I do not belief that I have a right to impinge on your freedom of belief. What I do belief is that you should have an understanding of what your belief entails and what the alternatives are before you can assert something. That is, you need to understand it in depth.

    Have a look at:
    Paine, Thomas (1794), Age of Reason, [On-line], URL: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtm....

    I would also point you to “Why I Am Not A Christian”, by Bertrand Russell
    http://www.conservativehumanism.com/WhyIamNotaC...

    David Hume and some of the works of the other British Empiricists may also be a good foundation for further study for you.
    • ^
    • v
    Craig,

    I may not have read as much on the subject as you have but I've read most everything Russell, Dawkins, and Harris have said on the matter (including Why I'm Not A Christian by Russell). I think the premier thinkers on the topic would agree with my interpretation of the word more than yours. You say, for example:

    As a scientist, mathematician and engineer however, I can not grasp atheism.


    You're implying that agnosticism is the only "scientific" way to go about life, which I disagree with. Ask yourself why Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are atheists instead of agnostics. The reason is that the inability to "prove" a negative doesn't mean it's worth being agnostic about.

    Again, agnosticism is usually reserved for things that can feasibly be learned about, such as the precise mechanism by which gravity exerts its force, etc. I'm agnostic about that, as are most scientists. But what we are talking about with Christianity is a zombie man born of a virgin who performs miracles and listens to millions of peoples' thoughts simultaneously.

    This is no different than leprechauns or unicorns in terms of scientific probability. As I said before. The notion of all unprovable things being equal is a fallacy. The chances of intelligent alien life and the chances of the existence of Zeus are NOT even remotely the same.

    Which brings us to atheism. We're talking about a definition here, so we need to sync up again. My contention is that a modern atheist simply doesn't believe in the major Gods that others believe in, not that they must strictly deny the existence of anything like a God, at all times, in all multiverses, etc. That's preposterous.

    Atheism is a construct that came about because of the presence of mass delusion; it's not something in and of itself. As such its frame of reference is that of current belief structures.
    • ^
    • v
    I understand atheism extremely well. I have done an extended study of this topic. As for your protestation that more advanced scientists are atheists. Actually, 42% of western scientists with PhD’s are Christians.

    Stephen Hawkings attends an Anglican Church most weekends. Actually, Athesit scientists are statistically the minority.


    You do realize that Hawkings is an atheist, right? A true atheist. If you follow any of the recent studies on the matter you'll see that many scientists attend Church not because they believe but because it serves as social lubricant. Hawkings is one such scientist.

    There's a study coming out very soon on the topic of scientists' belief in God that will be the most exhaustive of its kind. I think you'll find that it will wreak havoc on your statistic of 42% of PhD'd western scientists being atheists.

    And the corolation between education and atheism is well documented. The one for wealth is as well, but it's a fact that as scientists become more accomplished they become more likely to identify as atheists.

    Oh, and thank you for participating here. Your input is much appreciated. :)
    • ^
    • v
    Actually, Hawkings is a Deist. He does not believe in a "personal God". This is not the same as not believing in a God. Rischard Dawkings is an Atheist. He does not like to discuss his belief publically, this is not the same as you are asserting.

    In his book, "A Brief Hiustory of Time", you may be interested to discover that the main character is God. Carl Sagan (an Atheist) has critisised Hawkings due to his inclusion of a God figure.

    Stephen Hawking has a belief that a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything will eventually be found by which humans can "know the mind of God."

    Hawkings has on several occasions publically stated that he is not an atheist. His wife, Jane, is a devout christian, so to some extent this may be some of the justification for his going to church even when he does not believe in a personal God (rather as I stated an impersonal one).

    Some Hawkings quotes:
    "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws."

    And

    "So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator"

    I suggest that you check a little further than blogs on people before assuming them to be Atheists.
    • ^
    • v
    You say Dawkins doesn't talk about his beliefs? He wrote an entire book about them. I read the book. You apparently did not.

    And Hawking not believing in a "personal God" basically puts him firmly in the realm of pantheist, like Einstein. In fact, I'm fairly certain he used Einsteins words on purpose. The phrase "know the mind of God" is a pantheistic phrase.
    • ^
    • v
    Einstein was a jew and the Torah has support for Biblical pantheism. I would not purport to state that this was Einstein's belief structure. Kabbalah and other forms of Jewish mysticism for the main basis for Jewish biblical pantheism and I do not see Einstein associated with any of these. I do not have enough evidence to disput this however.

    Being that this (pantheism) is a belief that all individual humans are, being part of the universe, part of God. I would agree that Hawkins could fall into this as well.

    Pantheism does not exclude one from other aspects of belief though. One may be a Deist OR a Fundimentalist and also be a Pantheist. In fact Pandeism is a subset of Pantheism which includes a Deistic outlook. So they are not exclusive.

    There are even a number of Christian and Islamic pantheistic groups (eg Quakerism).

    As for his books, I have read:
    Singularities in Collapsing Stars and Expanding Universes
    The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime
    God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History
    A Brief History of Time
    On The Shoulders of Giants. The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy, and
    The Universe in a Nutshell
    The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind

    These are not all his books I know, but in which does he approach his belief? He skirts the issue, implies, but I would not in any of these say that he is approaching the topic.

    Also, you did state that he was Atheist earlier. Although pantheistic belief is compatible with several religions and even to an extent agnostisism, it is not Aethist in nature.

    In the age of Enlightenment, it was argued that pantheism was the same as theism.

    Are you approacing this from a viewpoint of biblical pantheism, natural pantheism, classical pantheism or dietic pantheism? In each case the perspective is separate.
    • ^
    • v
    Alternatively, nontheism which is defined as an absence of clearly identified belief in any deity and is somewhere between atheism and agnosticism may be more alligned to what you believe?

    Also it could be argued that Hawkings is alligned closely to panentheism - which is the belief that the universe is part of God.

    You also state that atheism is irreligious. That basically there is not religion associated with Atheism.

    In fact Confucianism and Buddhism are both religions and each are atheistic. A large part of why the western legal acceptance of these religions has been slow to progress is that they have no God figure. In Buddist belief, Budda is an enlightened personage, he is not a god.
    • ^
    • v
    As a final thought for the night. I would ask if you are an Atheist, what type?

    You seem to value the oppinion of Dawkins. He states he is a "de facto atheist" but not a "Strong Atheist".

    There is also weak atheism, which is in effect non-theism.

    You may also want to have a look at ignosticism or igtheism. This is the belief that the proposition of the existence of a transcendent God is meaningless due to the nature of terms that are "clearly nonfalsifiable" and "basically unintelligible".

    This last belief structure includes Friedrich Nietzsche and many logical positivists - many who are commonly called (wrongly) Atheists.

    The following is a good read for the above.

    Armstrong, Karen (1993). A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 378–79. ISBN 0-679-42600-0.
    • ^
    • v
    PS You should also have a look at the following terms:
    Disproof atheists
    Methodological atheists
    Mystical atheists
    Faith atheists
    Unknowability agnostics
    Zero data agnostics
    Data vs. data agnostics
    Data vs. principle agnostics
    and
    noncognitivist
    • ^
    • v
    > As a final thought for the night. I would ask if you are an Atheist, what type?

    I am very close to a strong-atheist when it comes to the Judeo-Christian religions, Islam, and other major sects. I am something of a pantheist within the confines of our universe, and an absolute agnostic when it comes to "true" knowledge of everything, i.e. pre-big-bang, the origin of primordial soup, etc.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

My Twitter Microblog

    Discovered Content


    About dmiessler.com

    This site is an avatar for my own self-assigned life purpose--an attempt to model the world in the most accurate way possible, and to do so without bias or fear of unpleasant truth. I desire to develop, articulate, and perpetually improve models of how things work, and then to use that understanding to increase happiness and reduce suffering. I seek those on similar paths and thrive on sharing an appreciation of the interesting and beautiful with others.



    Blog
    Study
    Writing
    Infosec
    Technology
    Politics

    Top Original Content


    Security & Technology

    Philosophy & Science

    Culture & Society

    Blog Archives