Daniel Goldman

Archives for August 2018

Sushi as a Sacred Food for Penguinists

By Daniel Goldman Leave a Comment Aug 29

It might not come as a surprise that sushi would be considered a sacred food by Penguinists, but the reason might surprise you.

First, sushi is not raw fish. Sushi refers to the seasoned rice itself. While raw fish is a common ingredient used in sushi, cooked fish and vegetables are also quite common.

Sushi is sacred for a few reasons. Rice itself is a staple food for a large portion of the world. It is also one of the oldest domesticated crops, with rice domestication occurring some 10,000 years ago in Asia. In Japan, an agricultural system known as the “satoyama” method literally creates an artificial biome for rice and food production. A lot of wildlife depends on these artificial biomes for their survival, as they have evolved to utilize them.

Additionally, sushi, like much of what is made in Japan, is about simplicity and execution. Traditional sushi has only one or two ingredients, in addition to the rice. Sushi chefs train for years to make quality sushi.

Another food that is common for Penguinists to eat is onigiri, or rice balls, which is just a ball of rice and one or two ingredients, such as kombu, or sesame seeds, or what we consider to be the favourite of Sq’wak, mentaiko (spicy cod roe).

The post Sushi as a Sacred Food for Penguinists appeared first on The First Church of Penguinism.

First Church of Penguinism: Gameplan

By Sqwak Leave a Comment Aug 23

This is a brief summary of The First Church of Penguinism’s game plan for the next few years.

  • Improve our website by making it better looking and more interactive.
    • For now, we’re using Disqus which allows comments on blog posts.
  • Gain members
    • We may begin using a standardized membership system if people are interested.
  • Generate some revenue through
    • Merchandise
    • Books and other media
    • Ads, although we would prefer not to go this route, if the other revenue generation methods work well enough, and affiliate links, which are already in use
  • Become a B Corp (public benefit corporation)
    • Being a Public Benefit Corporation (B Corp) would allow us to focus on our goal of promoting open science and the cooperation between science and religion, while still acting as a business (Certified B Corporation).
  • Start supporting open science organizations and other related organizations, including
    • The Center for Open Science
    • Reform Academia Org
  • Crowdfunding
    • If there is enough initial support, we will likely rely on Kickstarter or Indiegogo to fund additional expansion

For more information on Penguinism and The First Church of Penguinism, check out our FAQ on the home page.

The post First Church of Penguinism: Gameplan appeared first on The First Church of Penguinism.

Why is YHWH Evil?

By Daniel Goldman Leave a Comment Aug 23

Penguinism suggests that YHWH is evil, but this statement should be justified. Here I will use general concepts from western morality to argue this claim.

First, a universal objective morality may not exist, but we can still argue that something is or is not moral, within a given framework. In this case, it will be within a general moral framework commonly used by YHWH’s followers.

Punishment is at the core of this argument. When someone receives a punishment, it generally serves one of three purposes. The first is correction. We punish in order to correct negative behavior so that it does not happen again. The second is recompense. We punish to fix damages caused by the action. The third function of punishment is retribution.

Eye for an eye falls into this final version of punishment. But even in the case of retribution, which is essentially quite selfish, there is a sense that punishment should not be more severe than the transgression warrants. This form of punishment has been discussed extensively, and even finds its way into the Talmud (Eye for an Eye).

Human limits prevent us from being able to influence reality in a way that is infinite in nature. Humans are finite beings, at least according to Christian doctrine itself. Only god is infinite, or so it is said. Therefore any transgression committed by a human must be finite, unless aided by an infinite being, like a god.

Eternal punishment, in the form of hell, becomes a punishment that violates our norms of what constitutes equitable punishment. Furthermore, it is also definitely not corrective, as it is eternal. It is pure retribution. It is reasonable to assume that a being which tries to enforce such punishment is either ignorant of it severity, unable to refrain from such action, or is willfully punishing people in a way that is wrong.

YHWH is evil, or at least a false god, because it threatens to engage in punishment that is far more severe than the transgression, and does so without any attempt to make the punishment corrective. Of course, this only works for biblical interpretation where YHWH does exist and in which YHWH is truly threatening people to eternal damnation.

Further Reading

  • The Problem of Evil: A Few Analogies to Bring Perspective

The post Why is YHWH Evil? appeared first on The First Church of Penguinism.

Penguinism and Atheism

By Daniel Goldman Leave a Comment Aug 6

In this post, I will talk about Penguinism and atheism and why many Penguinists do not hold a position in either direction regarding a god’s existence.

I have come across many theists and atheists alike who seem to think that if you don’t believe a god exists, then you must believe that there are no gods. Penguinism teaches us that neither Sq’wak, The Divine Penguin, nor YHWH, the evil usurper, are gods. They are both natural entities. A god, in general, must be above/beyond natural order. And Penguinism itself holds no position on the matter.

But only claims of existence suffer burden of proof! Unfortunately that is not the case. Both claims of existence and claims of nonexistence suffer burden of proof. I won’t go into too much detail here, because I have addressed the issue in depth elsewhere. However, ideas like “you can’t prove a negative” are not valid rebuttals that can be used to avoid suffering burden of proof.

But aren’t gods impossible? It is a common belief that a god is impossible, because a being cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, as assuming any two of those omnis leads to the third omni being false. However, there are a number of issues with this view, and these issues make the “hypothesis” in works like “The God Delusion” straw man arguments.

The simplest issue is that a god does not have to follow strict omnis. A lot of theists believe that god can only do that which is consistent with its nature. It cannot therefore create a box that it cannot lift. Likewise, a lot of theists believe that a god can only know that which can be known. A god which knows all possible outcomes, and their probabilities, but not which outcome will be realized, is still for all intents and purposes, is omniscient.

The second issue is more complicated. Strict omnipotence is internally inconsistent. A strict omnipotent being could do something which is impossible to do. Yet most arguments used to attack god claims assume that strict omnipotence is a property that something could have. Similar issues exist with the other two strict omnis. The moment we assume, for the sake of argument, that any one of these properties can indeed be a property of something which is real, we have to relax consistency.

This issue gets into one of my areas of interests, nonstandard mathematics. One field of nonstandard mathematics is inconsistent math. In this field, we no longer assume that every theorem is consistent: some theorems can be both true and false at the same time. There are a number of good articles covering inconsistent mathematics. Here is one. The point is that, for inconsistent theorems, we can no longer use proof by contradiction. So omnipotence leading to a lack of omniscience does not necessarily present a problem: we could be dealing with a bizarre reality where something can be omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

But isn’t god evil? This is another interesting point. A god which allows suffering is not immediately evil. For one, a god may not be able to prevent suffering, or might not be able to do so without costing something even more important. For instance, it may be less benevolent to never allow existence in the first place, than allow existence where suffering could occur.

There are exceptions. The actions of YHWH, as discussed in The Basics of Penguinism, are evil. Why? YHWH seeks to punish those who do not obey, for all eternity. A punishment, for it to be good, must serve a corrective purpose, otherwise it’s just an act of revenge. A punishment also should not be more severe than the transgression. Eternal punishment cannot serve a corrective function, as it is eternal. Human actions are also seemingly finite, and so the punishment is well beyond the severity of the transgression. A being that willfully and knowingly issues such punishment is reasonably considered evil.

Summary. So in summary, Penguinism is not a theistic religion, nor does it assert that there are no gods. There may be a god, such as “El” but Penguinists just don’t generally hold a position in either direction.

The post Penguinism and Atheism appeared first on The First Church of Penguinism.

Recent Posts

  • Musings on Thermodynamics, Complexity, and Evolution
  • A Reply to Gina Rippon’s Commentary on Sex Based Differences in The Brain
  • A Reply to Gina Rippon’s Commentary on Sex Based Differences in The Brain
  • Plants vs Animals
  • Skeptical Tawny Frogmouth

Recent Comments

  • Πάνος Μάντζαρης on Musings on Thermodynamics, Complexity, and Evolution

Archives

  • January 2020
  • September 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • December 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015

Categories

  • Anthropology/Sociology
  • Graphic Novel
  • Health & Medicine
  • Hobbies
  • Living
  • New Research
  • penguinism
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Academics
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Politics
  • Rebuttals
  • Recent News
  • Religion
  • Risk Appetite
  • Roseanne Barr
  • Site News
  • Special Editorial
  • Stock Picks
  • Technical Analysis
  • TV Show
  • Twitter Response
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Daniel Goldman
Copyright © 2021 Daniel Goldman · (in)SPYR Theme by Genesis Developer: SPYR Media