The absurdity of the human need to commit, paired with our equally strong need to fling our genetic material to the furthest reaches of creation is not lost on me. Why oh why are human beings afflicted constantly with conflicting desires. Sometimes it seems that we as a species, are doomed to wrestle constantly with each other, and above all ourselves. Although I am personally a firm believer in the crucible like effects of conflict, I am certainly not inured to it's wear and tear. I can see the value of two contrary ideals competing for primacy, forcing most to (hopefully) utilize the best of both.
A bit of background before I continue onto the main point. I've recently been made a cuckold. While this has certainly been a negative and painful experience, I have been trying to put into words my own deeply held but too seldom examined dedication to the idea of permanent monogamy.
My most compelling personal reason for pursuing permanence in a partner in life would best be described as seeking a witness. A witness to both the noble and ignoble, the miraculous and mundane. I take a not inconsiderable amount of comfort in the idea, that my life in it's near entirety, will not be solely my own experience. That in my struggle to understand and live with myself, I need not do so alone, and most especially not when at my most desperate. The corollary to that is that I will be(hopefully) a witness in turn. I find the idea of being present and observing first hand, the myriad tribulations of another life both intellectually fascinating, and emotionally satisfying.
To be fair, I must present the other side of my own case. I certainly don't stop looking at or desiring other women sexually, or even sometimes emotionally(and which is the greater betrayal?) even while in a committed long term relationship. But while my eye may wander, this is as far as I take things. I think that really infidelity is an inexcusable lapse of morals. It is the ascendancy of the Id, and I'm not speaking from a puritanical stance. I have no problem with consenting adults engaging in polygamy and swapping and what not. But such things must be done openly and honestly, with the knowledge of the other partner. Anything else is pure selfishness, and the wellspring of morality begins with this simple truth; That your own needs are not necessarily paramount to the needs of others.
In any case I challenged the cad who had knowingly done this thing to a physical confrontation to settle matters between us. I am of course aware that it won't necessarily 'solve' anything, other than perhaps my intense desire to rearrange his features. In any case, the girl involved between us intervened and put a stop to that. I certainly hadn't any intention to inform her, as this was a matter between myself and the blackguard. But the coward decided to inform her so that she might convince him not to meet the gauntlet I had laid down for him. Such a douche.
Anyhow enough of the personal. Onward and upward to higher things.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Deism! huh-yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing Uh-huh
To begin with what is deism really?
Well as I understand it, it is the belief in a supernatural creative force or intelligence, that does not intervene in the natural order of the universe. It also typically implies that such a being would have no particular interest or personal relationship with humankind, much less with individual humans. It also supposes that such a being could be credited with the creation of our universe(for which people are understandably grateful).
Interestingly enough Wikipedia lists this in its article on deism in the opening paragraph.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma.
Which to me is rather surprising, since most deists I know reject the traditional idea that the mind of god could be known. However, since my point to prove is that deism is so watered down as to be useless, I think that I shall not address the idea that one might glean religious truth from some hidden natural code, as such an idea is prey to all the follies that the dogma of more theistic religions suffer.
On to why I find deism useless.
For one it has a notoriously slippery idea of god. I mean if god is energy one might find him lurking in a lump of coal. If god is love one can find him in everything to a farmer(apologies, Shepard) fucking his sheep, to a baby being born. I can go on and on with these vague definitions and why they are ridiculous and useless. You insert god to usurp the rightful place of far less vague and far more useful words. I don't god you, I love you. I don't want to drink a god drink, I want an energy drink(unless of course it is god-berry king of the juice). And I'm not godified, I'm mystified. I for my money think that the only definition worth anything for god is that of a supernatural deity, perhaps appropriate for our worship.
For another it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It seems(at first glance at least) to straddle philosophy/religion and science. Now some people might call that a bridge, however someone with spread legs conjures a rather less flattering image in my mind. Now we can know quite certainly that it is not a scientific hypothesis, after all there is no supporting evidence. And there cannot be, for if a being does not interact with our material universe, then it can produce no evidence, no bread crumbs leading us to it's existence. Its also very easy to pare away at the idea of deism with Occams razor. If people feel the need to invoke god to explain the origins of our universe, what do we then invoke to explain god? Or is god exempt from such strenuous qualifications of logic as our universe is not? To quote Laplace(a famous french astronomer) as he gave a copy of his works on the movement of celestial bodies to Napoleon. Napoleon had asked him why had not mentioned the Creator in his works Laplace replied: 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là' or in English, I had no need of that hypothesis. How very true.
Just as a side note on the sometimes cozy relationship between deism and organized religion, I find it somewhat contemptible that prizes like the Templeton exist. I mean the sheer joy of the cardinals, pastors,rabbi's and imams and mullahs when a deistic scientist is prepared to say something nice about religion. You can almost see the gears turning as they calculate the advantage of having someone on their side(however nominally) that can speak coherently on physics, or biology.
I assert that if Deism wants to be taken seriously it should subject itself to a bit more rigor. It after all is arguing the positive. To do so requires evidence, I see precious little. I do however see an abundance of science pushing back the territories of what faith can claim, as it expands the boundaries of what it can prove or disprove. It is a small and piteous god than who lives only in the gaps of our ignorance.
So in summary, if god as posited by the deists is more human than not then I must say god is not fitting to revere, or likely capable of creating the universe. And if god is less human than not, then I will say well what possible relevance could such a being have to our lives? If god interacts with the world by now we might have expected to find some evidence of such. And indeed could be considered an hypothesis, to which our reasonable default position would be one of skepticism or non-belief until proof was presented. And if god does not interact with the material universe why then are we speaking of it? God could have no relevance to our lives then, or anything else for that matter.
Well as I understand it, it is the belief in a supernatural creative force or intelligence, that does not intervene in the natural order of the universe. It also typically implies that such a being would have no particular interest or personal relationship with humankind, much less with individual humans. It also supposes that such a being could be credited with the creation of our universe(for which people are understandably grateful).
Interestingly enough Wikipedia lists this in its article on deism in the opening paragraph.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma.
Which to me is rather surprising, since most deists I know reject the traditional idea that the mind of god could be known. However, since my point to prove is that deism is so watered down as to be useless, I think that I shall not address the idea that one might glean religious truth from some hidden natural code, as such an idea is prey to all the follies that the dogma of more theistic religions suffer.
On to why I find deism useless.
For one it has a notoriously slippery idea of god. I mean if god is energy one might find him lurking in a lump of coal. If god is love one can find him in everything to a farmer(apologies, Shepard) fucking his sheep, to a baby being born. I can go on and on with these vague definitions and why they are ridiculous and useless. You insert god to usurp the rightful place of far less vague and far more useful words. I don't god you, I love you. I don't want to drink a god drink, I want an energy drink(unless of course it is god-berry king of the juice). And I'm not godified, I'm mystified. I for my money think that the only definition worth anything for god is that of a supernatural deity, perhaps appropriate for our worship.
For another it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It seems(at first glance at least) to straddle philosophy/religion and science. Now some people might call that a bridge, however someone with spread legs conjures a rather less flattering image in my mind. Now we can know quite certainly that it is not a scientific hypothesis, after all there is no supporting evidence. And there cannot be, for if a being does not interact with our material universe, then it can produce no evidence, no bread crumbs leading us to it's existence. Its also very easy to pare away at the idea of deism with Occams razor. If people feel the need to invoke god to explain the origins of our universe, what do we then invoke to explain god? Or is god exempt from such strenuous qualifications of logic as our universe is not? To quote Laplace(a famous french astronomer) as he gave a copy of his works on the movement of celestial bodies to Napoleon. Napoleon had asked him why had not mentioned the Creator in his works Laplace replied: 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là' or in English, I had no need of that hypothesis. How very true.
Just as a side note on the sometimes cozy relationship between deism and organized religion, I find it somewhat contemptible that prizes like the Templeton exist. I mean the sheer joy of the cardinals, pastors,rabbi's and imams and mullahs when a deistic scientist is prepared to say something nice about religion. You can almost see the gears turning as they calculate the advantage of having someone on their side(however nominally) that can speak coherently on physics, or biology.
I assert that if Deism wants to be taken seriously it should subject itself to a bit more rigor. It after all is arguing the positive. To do so requires evidence, I see precious little. I do however see an abundance of science pushing back the territories of what faith can claim, as it expands the boundaries of what it can prove or disprove. It is a small and piteous god than who lives only in the gaps of our ignorance.
So in summary, if god as posited by the deists is more human than not then I must say god is not fitting to revere, or likely capable of creating the universe. And if god is less human than not, then I will say well what possible relevance could such a being have to our lives? If god interacts with the world by now we might have expected to find some evidence of such. And indeed could be considered an hypothesis, to which our reasonable default position would be one of skepticism or non-belief until proof was presented. And if god does not interact with the material universe why then are we speaking of it? God could have no relevance to our lives then, or anything else for that matter.
The roots of non religious altruism.
I recently watched a video debate of Dinesh D'souza and Peter Singer. The subject obviously was Atheism and Christianity. A question was asked and never answered. What is the objective basis of morality independent of Christian theology and influence? I feel that atheists often spend a lot of time attacking the beliefs of others(they do so often make themselves tempting targets), and not enough time articulating the basis of their own beliefs. So what follows is my exploration of what the nature, limits, cause, and continuation of natural or biological altruism entails.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is that it is in fact very okay to care about yourself more than others. I think its more important that I eat than someone else. So do you. So would that other person if they had any food. It is entirely natural to care about your own preservation and continued health and prosperity more than another persons. The only time that this is significantly overridden is with spouses, children, and typically family members. The biological reasoning for this should be obvious, all of those people can pass on your DNA in some way shape or form. And speaking reasonably, if you fail to maintain yourself you cannot effectively care for others.
Social altruism occurs in many places in the animal kingdom. Dogs will adopt orphaned dogs and even members of other species cats etc. Many animals in the primate family will share food and assist in defense and warning of their species and even other primate species. Dogs and monkeys are both social animals as are Humans. But really the key thing to notice is that these animals can't be practicing Christians.
So from there we can effectively reason that altruism has a basis in biology and requires no outside lawgiver to illuminate its principles for us. But what about the altruism that humans display that goes beyond the pale?
Firstly I would like to posit that altruism to a certain extent is enabled by abundance. If I have more than what I need, why wouldn't I share it. It violates no immediate need of my own, and in fact to a cognitive, imaginative planner like a human presents future opportunities for reciprocity. Now reciprocity is not guaranteed, but one can reasonably expect a certain degree of gratitude from recipients. Compliance to reciprocity is also guaranteed by the fear of reprisal either in the form of immediate action or the possible withholding of future generosity on the part of the original giver. Ultimately as beings capable of long term planning we are able to weigh short term gain against longer term gain. So sharing now when we have abundance costs us very little actually as we enjoy that abundance, and enables or makes more likely the possibility of others abundance coming our way when we are in a disadvantageous position. This reasoning also follows for the rule of law and why people generally respect it. You can kill, rape, steal all you like if you're strong enough to get away with it. But you have to sleep, and you have to get old. So eventually someone stronger is going to come along and take care of you. By abiding by laws and applying them more or less fairly to everyone in society, people ensure their longer term needs by mutual co operation.
Second I would like to show how extreme altruism the give till it hurts variety is motivated by the immaterial(duh) and is not always a good thing, and can in fact be motivated by secular and selfish concerns. Extreme altruism can be triggered by immaterial rewards, like heaven. It can also be sought for more earthly but still very immaterial things. One can practice extreme altruism to achieve fame, and praise as well as securing the good opinion of others. This has obvious benefits, both for achieving future material success as well as in effect building up credit for future less altruistic acts. I think its interesting that in order to be considered a nice person you have to act like a nice person, raising the question of 'does motive even matter'? Extreme altruism can also be a product of a biologically driven desire to display superiority to potential mates(I'm such good provider/so strong that I can afford to share). But the principles underlying extreme altruism can have a darker side. What is evil if not the conscious exertion of will, of turning away from a palpably and materially better outcome towards a patently worse one. A person(functioning properly) would never do that unless motivated by the immaterial.
I feel the first kind of altruism the material, selfish, and limited kind is more reliable and reasonable and generally more desirable than the second more extreme kind of altruism. It provides more than enough of a basis for a compassionate, lawful, and reasonable society and can be counted on to behave more or less consistently. If one takes a utilitarian view, such as others needs are more important than my superfluous comforts it even allows for impressive acts of charity.
And in any case its a much better reason than a stone tablet offered by a genocidal madman who spoke to burning bushes.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is that it is in fact very okay to care about yourself more than others. I think its more important that I eat than someone else. So do you. So would that other person if they had any food. It is entirely natural to care about your own preservation and continued health and prosperity more than another persons. The only time that this is significantly overridden is with spouses, children, and typically family members. The biological reasoning for this should be obvious, all of those people can pass on your DNA in some way shape or form. And speaking reasonably, if you fail to maintain yourself you cannot effectively care for others.
Social altruism occurs in many places in the animal kingdom. Dogs will adopt orphaned dogs and even members of other species cats etc. Many animals in the primate family will share food and assist in defense and warning of their species and even other primate species. Dogs and monkeys are both social animals as are Humans. But really the key thing to notice is that these animals can't be practicing Christians.
So from there we can effectively reason that altruism has a basis in biology and requires no outside lawgiver to illuminate its principles for us. But what about the altruism that humans display that goes beyond the pale?
Firstly I would like to posit that altruism to a certain extent is enabled by abundance. If I have more than what I need, why wouldn't I share it. It violates no immediate need of my own, and in fact to a cognitive, imaginative planner like a human presents future opportunities for reciprocity. Now reciprocity is not guaranteed, but one can reasonably expect a certain degree of gratitude from recipients. Compliance to reciprocity is also guaranteed by the fear of reprisal either in the form of immediate action or the possible withholding of future generosity on the part of the original giver. Ultimately as beings capable of long term planning we are able to weigh short term gain against longer term gain. So sharing now when we have abundance costs us very little actually as we enjoy that abundance, and enables or makes more likely the possibility of others abundance coming our way when we are in a disadvantageous position. This reasoning also follows for the rule of law and why people generally respect it. You can kill, rape, steal all you like if you're strong enough to get away with it. But you have to sleep, and you have to get old. So eventually someone stronger is going to come along and take care of you. By abiding by laws and applying them more or less fairly to everyone in society, people ensure their longer term needs by mutual co operation.
Second I would like to show how extreme altruism the give till it hurts variety is motivated by the immaterial(duh) and is not always a good thing, and can in fact be motivated by secular and selfish concerns. Extreme altruism can be triggered by immaterial rewards, like heaven. It can also be sought for more earthly but still very immaterial things. One can practice extreme altruism to achieve fame, and praise as well as securing the good opinion of others. This has obvious benefits, both for achieving future material success as well as in effect building up credit for future less altruistic acts. I think its interesting that in order to be considered a nice person you have to act like a nice person, raising the question of 'does motive even matter'? Extreme altruism can also be a product of a biologically driven desire to display superiority to potential mates(I'm such good provider/so strong that I can afford to share). But the principles underlying extreme altruism can have a darker side. What is evil if not the conscious exertion of will, of turning away from a palpably and materially better outcome towards a patently worse one. A person(functioning properly) would never do that unless motivated by the immaterial.
I feel the first kind of altruism the material, selfish, and limited kind is more reliable and reasonable and generally more desirable than the second more extreme kind of altruism. It provides more than enough of a basis for a compassionate, lawful, and reasonable society and can be counted on to behave more or less consistently. If one takes a utilitarian view, such as others needs are more important than my superfluous comforts it even allows for impressive acts of charity.
And in any case its a much better reason than a stone tablet offered by a genocidal madman who spoke to burning bushes.
The Problem With Moderates.
Why criticize moderates? Aren’t they the good guys? Better than extremist or hard-line atheists certainly at least? But that’s not exactly the case is it. I submit that moderate, modern, and secular Christians, Jews, and Moslems all contribute towards a safe haven and a toleration of dangerous and reactionary fundamentalist sects. They do this by providing legitimacy to lunacy, a bulwark against legislation and legal scrutiny, and a pool of faithful from which these fundamentalist sects can spring.
This post is entitled the problem with moderates. So what precisely is that problem? Simply put the problem with moderates is that they follow(at least partially) a way of life and a philosophy that had its beginnings well over two thousand years ago. And they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the doctrines and holy books in which they put so much stock(or so little stock). Why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the literal truth of the bible. Jesus said and did nothing original or special. The major article of faith for Christianity(or Judaism or Islam) is that they are the holders of a unique and special covenant with an Omniscient God. Loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek are not values unique to the bible. Not suffering a witch to live? Now that’s a creed that you have to look a little bit harder for. When someone espouses partial adherence to a creed whether because they have found the small kernel of moral or spiritual worth within it, or because it is a cultural tradition that is cherished by their family or friends they are being intellectually dishonest. If moderate Christians, Jews, Moslems etc wish to be taken seriously as being entirely separate from their more fundamentalist brothers and sisters of the faith, why haven’t they released and edited version of their prized sacred documents? Why not eliminate the hateful and scientifically and historically inaccurate parts of the King James Bible and the Koran? I know that if you did it to the Pentateuch(the jewish written torah) then you would scarcely have 2 pages to rub together but still. The reason that they do not eliminate the terribly destructive parts of their holy books is that their faiths are built upon them just as much as they are built upon the kind and forgiving passages. Wiping them away would be wiping away thousands of years of church policy(and when church and state were not so separate) social and legal policy as well. Look at the damage that the Catholic Church has done in Africa by discouraging condoms and other methods of birth control that help stem the tide of aids. Look at the civil liberties that are denied(or hotly contested) to citizens in the US(a supposedly secular democracy) all because of religious doctrine. Moderates may not strap bombs to themselves or throw Molotov cocktails through school windows, but their hateful religious precepts destroy lives and society’s nonetheless. They hold back social progress, and entrench stupid baseless opinions and values in their adherents.
The problem with moderates is that they obscure the line between them and fundamentalists who are at war with a secular western society. They practice many of the same cultural and religious traditions, and often cherish the same things. They make it difficult to criticize the very root of religious extremism, religion.
This post is entitled the problem with moderates. So what precisely is that problem? Simply put the problem with moderates is that they follow(at least partially) a way of life and a philosophy that had its beginnings well over two thousand years ago. And they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the doctrines and holy books in which they put so much stock(or so little stock). Why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the literal truth of the bible. Jesus said and did nothing original or special. The major article of faith for Christianity(or Judaism or Islam) is that they are the holders of a unique and special covenant with an Omniscient God. Loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek are not values unique to the bible. Not suffering a witch to live? Now that’s a creed that you have to look a little bit harder for. When someone espouses partial adherence to a creed whether because they have found the small kernel of moral or spiritual worth within it, or because it is a cultural tradition that is cherished by their family or friends they are being intellectually dishonest. If moderate Christians, Jews, Moslems etc wish to be taken seriously as being entirely separate from their more fundamentalist brothers and sisters of the faith, why haven’t they released and edited version of their prized sacred documents? Why not eliminate the hateful and scientifically and historically inaccurate parts of the King James Bible and the Koran? I know that if you did it to the Pentateuch(the jewish written torah) then you would scarcely have 2 pages to rub together but still. The reason that they do not eliminate the terribly destructive parts of their holy books is that their faiths are built upon them just as much as they are built upon the kind and forgiving passages. Wiping them away would be wiping away thousands of years of church policy(and when church and state were not so separate) social and legal policy as well. Look at the damage that the Catholic Church has done in Africa by discouraging condoms and other methods of birth control that help stem the tide of aids. Look at the civil liberties that are denied(or hotly contested) to citizens in the US(a supposedly secular democracy) all because of religious doctrine. Moderates may not strap bombs to themselves or throw Molotov cocktails through school windows, but their hateful religious precepts destroy lives and society’s nonetheless. They hold back social progress, and entrench stupid baseless opinions and values in their adherents.
The problem with moderates is that they obscure the line between them and fundamentalists who are at war with a secular western society. They practice many of the same cultural and religious traditions, and often cherish the same things. They make it difficult to criticize the very root of religious extremism, religion.
Why I am not a Theist.(Thank you Bertrand Russell)
This post is part of a continuing series of posts about atheism that I intend to write. I believe in actively promoting your politics, values and ideas and this is one of my attempts to do so. I also would just like to clarify that I am most certainly a layperson and have never attended an accredited(or indeed even a non-accredited) post secondary class on philosophy, religion, theology, sociology, psychology, math, or any of the physical sciences. Any errors or omissions in my ideas or statements are most certainly my own, and while I will occasionally use famous persons(both living and dead) words I certainly do not ascribe to their entire world-view. I simply believe that nothing I'm saying is entirely original and why not use words of far greater eloquence than my own.
To begin I'll discuss morality and theism. Often I find that when I express my religious beliefs to people I know who are more socially conservative, or moderately religious, I encounter the question(usually politely phrased) of 'how do you know right from wrong'? This is usually couched as a serious question. I think that from a common sense perspective, very few people would point to a specific religious text for their most prominent moral figures. Parents, older siblings, mentors, and heroes fill the role of moral advisor's in a far more relevant capacity. Not only are their values not distorted by 2 millenia of moral zeitgeist, they also present more familiar experiences to draw from than the bible. If however someone were to hear a voice from the heavens demanding them to sacrifice their firstborn son, one could certainly turn to the bible for relevant examples of moral judgment(or preferably to a psychologist).
Often religious people have a hard time with the source of moral authority without god. They often argue that without god, anything and everything is permitted. To answer this one needs only a very simple grasp of logical thought. Either the things that god commands us to do are moral because god commands us to do them, or because they have moral worth independent of gods commands. If god commands them because they are good, then why do we need him to tell us? If an action has observable moral worth then we don't. If however you believe that only gods commands have moral worth then anything is permitted in principle. Any act no matter how repugnant can be legitimized by a divine decree. And lets not forget that the god of Abraham specifically allowed and encouraged his subjects, to conquer, kill, rape, commit genocide, infanticide, genital mutilation and numerous other atrocities. And no take backs here theists. If god is omniscient then he doesn't make mistakes.
I wish more Christians would read the old testament. It's a terrible book filled with vile bigotry, and horrible atrocities. All done in the name of the entity that would become Jesus, meek and mild(after he had been sated for centuries on the blood of his enemies and people).
To begin I'll discuss morality and theism. Often I find that when I express my religious beliefs to people I know who are more socially conservative, or moderately religious, I encounter the question(usually politely phrased) of 'how do you know right from wrong'? This is usually couched as a serious question. I think that from a common sense perspective, very few people would point to a specific religious text for their most prominent moral figures. Parents, older siblings, mentors, and heroes fill the role of moral advisor's in a far more relevant capacity. Not only are their values not distorted by 2 millenia of moral zeitgeist, they also present more familiar experiences to draw from than the bible. If however someone were to hear a voice from the heavens demanding them to sacrifice their firstborn son, one could certainly turn to the bible for relevant examples of moral judgment(or preferably to a psychologist).
Often religious people have a hard time with the source of moral authority without god. They often argue that without god, anything and everything is permitted. To answer this one needs only a very simple grasp of logical thought. Either the things that god commands us to do are moral because god commands us to do them, or because they have moral worth independent of gods commands. If god commands them because they are good, then why do we need him to tell us? If an action has observable moral worth then we don't. If however you believe that only gods commands have moral worth then anything is permitted in principle. Any act no matter how repugnant can be legitimized by a divine decree. And lets not forget that the god of Abraham specifically allowed and encouraged his subjects, to conquer, kill, rape, commit genocide, infanticide, genital mutilation and numerous other atrocities. And no take backs here theists. If god is omniscient then he doesn't make mistakes.
I wish more Christians would read the old testament. It's a terrible book filled with vile bigotry, and horrible atrocities. All done in the name of the entity that would become Jesus, meek and mild(after he had been sated for centuries on the blood of his enemies and people).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
