Nails on a Chalkboard

[etherial]

I've been listing to Introduction to Judaism from The Teaching Company, and every time the Professor gives a date, the sound of the CE grates on my ears like nails on a chalkboard. Now, I understand that the whole point of CE is to make the calendar less "Christocentric", but not only do I feel it fails in that regard, I feel it perpetuates the supremacy of the Christian Calendar whilst smacking of Revisionist History.

It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.

Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.

I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.

We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.

Comments

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

So... you have "your opinion." As I've said, I find your case unconvincing.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

You seem to have a curious notion of "opinion" and "fact."

I've encountered this belief frequently. That people have it is a fact. I combat this belief, not because I think it might be statistically significant amongst the American populace (and, as I've stated repeatedly, I find that such a study would be misleading and cause me to passively ignore destructive behaviors), but because I see it and it has an immediate impact on the world I am able to observe.

Now, it is my opinion that I should do this instead of relying on largely unverifiable and easily manipulative studies to guide how I can and should act on my beliefs.

If you disagree with that, and feel that you should rely on said studies to make largely inconsequential change, more power to you. That's "your opinion" and we will have to respectfully disagree.




I suppose, to attempt to think in your terms (though I know you hate that postmodernism fluff), I should say that I'm not interested in building a generalized case, or to try and demonstrate that this is a socially significant problem on a large scale. While I am interested in large scale problems, and work to try and solve them, I also fervently seek to solve those that exist on the small scale, within my grasp. You seem to feel that this "science as religion" business is small scale, and thus not worth paying attention to. I honestly have no notion of how widespread this is, and am not interested in finding out. I see it in front of me, and I work to fix it. Individual conversation is more likely to change opinions than pamphlets anyways.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

You also seem uninterested in accounting for your own cognitive biases...

You have brought evidence insufficient to your claim to the table, so I'll consider what you've said (Science, as perceived in the mind of the majority of individuals who proclaim allegience to it, is just as often used for justification of fallacious beliefs as religion.) as your opinion.

If you had been able to support your claim with more than your own personal anecdotes, then I (another person, who did not observe what you did, and may well have had different experiences of my own) shall consider your proposition (that there is 'science-worship' going on) to be an opinion.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. Nearly everyone falls prey to one or two. Perhaps I'm guilty of confirmation bias. But none of that has a practical effect on everyday activism.

I do try to root out cognitive bias and error of any sort whenever I can, though.

Anyways, I suppose it will have to stay opinion between us. I could go rooting around on blogs for personal statements and the like, or go digging for quantitative analysis, but the time-to-benefit ratio doesn't make it worthwhile. And it will likely seem to be post-hoc desperate justification.

I seem to recall in the distant past reading a treatise on metaphysics as viewed from the scientific paradigm that touches on this. If I run across it again, I'll certainly point you in its direction.

for your information, some self-descriptions

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall in the distant past reading a treatise on metaphysics as viewed from the scientific paradigm that touches on this. If I run across it again, I'll certainly point you in its direction.

Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier. Authorhouse (2005) ISBN 1-4208-0293-3

Probably not the one you were thinking of, but I identify with the theory of knowledge presented therein.

---

As the disclaimer on my LJ says:

I'm a... secular humanist, metaphysical naturalist, strong atheist, new atheist.

My politics are... progressive, vaguely socialistic, vaguely libertarian (I suppose I should use scare quotes... okay... "libertarian")

If you want to continue this discussion, we ought to take it off Greg's LJ to avoid spamming his inbox.

Re: for your information, some self-descriptions

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Amusingly enough, I'd apply most of those political labels to myself, though I sense that I'm less "libertarian" (esp. since I see pure libertarianism as dumbtarded) and more socialist than you.

If you want to continue this discussion, we ought to take it off Greg's LJ to avoid spamming his inbox.

Sure. Any suggestions? I'd rather avoid email because it doesn't lend itself as well to a conversation dynamic.

Re: for your information, some self-descriptions

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

I've added you to my friends list, as well as Religion and Politics filters. (If you subsequently would like to be off either, let me know.)

I've created a thread here (http://dirkcjelli.livejournal.com/184433.html)

Fwiw, 'vaguely' is an important prefix to 'libertarian.'