Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher for the 21st century. His pace is terrifyingly polymathic and just keeping up with the intricacies of his speaking style is an intellectual assault course. Described by his biographer as doing philosophy with such recklessness as to risk making it interesting (a rather pessimistic and unjustified jab at ‘analytic’ philosophy) Zizek is a controversial, card-carrying comrade, but to run away screaming ‘COMMUNIST!’ would be to commit to the modern fallacy of pigeon-holing and categorizing. Zizek is too weird for that.
What interests me about his thought in the context of this blog is his critique of Christianity. An atheist, Zizek would no doubt shun the ‘new atheist’ movement and perhaps view this blog's posts on the future of freethought with bizarre fascination - as he might view the blog in its entirety. Nonetheless, this ‘continental’ thinker has much to contribute to any atheism/theism debate.
Zizek focuses on the Christian command to ‘love thy neighbour’. Firstly, and less interestingly, he asserts along with many other thinkers (I can also think of Hitchens) that love issued as a command is simply not possible. Any claim to do such a thing should be met with suspicion.
The intriguing stuff starts when Zizek asks what is meant by the term ‘neighbour’. It isn’t, he claims, that we should have empathy or sympathy with the man on the street. It is very far removed from this. As part of his larger critique of capitalism, Zizek holds that the term ‘neighbour’ is employed only in order to distance the user from his fellow human. Humanity, claims Zizek (paradoxically in my view), has both human and inhuman aspects. The command to love one's neighbour forces you to embrace both sides.
Charity in the 21st century, is not what it seems, says Zizek. The real motivation for giving to the poor isn’t that you want to help your neighbour; it’s just that you couldn’t care less and want to forget about the issue, but want to feel like it’s ok to forget.
Zizek skilfully extends this critique of religion to a political one and then back again, and if you fancy some quick-paced thinking, check out this video, the first part of which is posted below.
Remember, I’m just a blogger, so don’t go taking this post to your philosophy lecturer. If you want to learn more about Zizek, listen to the man himself.
Showing newest posts with label Morality. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Morality. Show older posts
Monday, 15 February 2010
Saturday, 16 January 2010
How Should Freethought Proceed? More Thoughts...
We’ve had many articles considering the best way to dampen the fervour and spread of religious belief. John Kubinski (18), a regular writer for Young Freethought, wades in once more with this excellent essay. In it, he argues that religion is best understood as a moral intuition with evolutionary roots, rather than as a poor attempt at philosophy and empirical inquiry. He argues this insight into the nature of religious belief might be helpful in thinking about the best strategies for dismantling religion.
The first step in addressing any problem is coming to understand the nature of the problem. Freethinkers can mostly agree that religion is irrational, but what is the nature of this irrationality? Often times, I see freethinkers treating religion as what is essentially a philosophy - and they accordingly hold it up to standards of logical rigor and academic competence. While this perspective is helpful in highlighting the illogical and absurd features of religions, it completely misses the mark in the way of offering an accurate explanation of religion. Religion as philosophy is a terrible model for understanding the phenomenon that we are trying to combat. When someone makes a ludicrous religious claim, it’s nothing like stating a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the given premises. Say you showed someone an apple and dropped it ten times in a row, and it fell to the floor each time. If the spectator responds to this observation by saying that apples rise rather than fall when dropped, that would be irrational - because the evidence suggests otherwise. Now, is religion anything like that? I think few would venture to answer yes to that question. Religious irrationality is of a fundamentally different kind than that. Religion is not merely bad philosophy. Religion must be understood as an outgrowth of evolved features of human psychology, and a product of what is in all likelihood the co-evolution of memes and genes. The capacity for religiosity exists in all of us, and is not just the result of poor reasoning, but a human universal that has been a defining feature of our nature for nearly as long as we have existed. Religion comes to us not through reason, but through intuition. And our intuitions are just a set of evolved faculties that come pre-installed in all of our brains.
While I think memetics can offer a valuable approach, I find myself parting ways with some who view it as a full and satisfactory explanation of religion. Memes don’t exist in a vacuum, they modify our intuitions and help give shape to the milieu of human psychology which has its basic features already outlined by genes. This is why I think it can be instructive to think of religion more like tribalism than say…flat earth theory. To continue to use the language of memes, one could say that American (or British, or French, or Chinese, etc.) nationalism is a meme. But it would be highly (and I would say perhaps dangerously) erroneous to conclude that belief in the superiority of the group one belongs to is merely a meme. While the specific flavour of tribalism is memetic, the capacity for tribalism is innate and universal in human beings. In the same way that tribal loyalty is internalized at a very young age, religion is seamlessly absorbed by the youth in a society. The sheer utility of tribalism in organizing human beings in mutually beneficial ways was all that was required for natural selection to favour the evolution of tribalistic beliefs, even if they didn’t match up with reality. Evolution favours brains that generate a useful model of reality, not necessarily an accurate one. An affinity for ritual might better capitalize on the placebo effect, for example. While there is a lot of dispute about the evolutionary adaptive value (if there is any at all) of religion, I think it’s important to make the point that the nature of all human beliefs are fundamentally designed to be instrumental in attaining survival and reproductive success.
Religion is not merely a worldview for people; it is an integral element of their identity that becomes enshrined in moral intuitions about adhering to the codes and practices of one’s tribe. One of the interesting findings of moral psychology has been that moral judgments are made impulsively and intuitively and then later offered rationalizations. We should not be surprised by the hyper-sensitivity religious people exhibit when it comes to criticism of religion, as it is an expected result of our evolved propensity to sanctify and dogmatically defend the social norms we internalize from our tribe. Belief in the religion that one is raised in should probably be conceived of less as a claim about the nature of the universe, and more as a moral claim. If we take the case of racism, it’s fairly obvious that racism was not really an empirical statement about differences between races, but a moral statement of which empirical justifications were later attempted to be produced for. I think it may be instructive to consider that belief in a religion stems primarily from a deep intuitive inclination that belief in that religion is intrinsically good, and that the justifications for the truth of the religion are offered as an after-thought. There is a period in childhood where children are like impressionable sponges that absorb information from peers and authorities, so that they can profit from the discoveries of their ancestors and internalize the norms of their tribe that will allow them to successfully navigate both their social and ecological landscape; the fact that religious indoctrination occurs during this period should be insightful in understanding the type of belief that religiosity is. The religious mentality, like the mentality of tribalism, was not invented by memes, but arises from evolved intuitions - and not just intuitions about the nature of the world around us (though these were certainly instrumental in the formation of religion, as the Wikipedia article on the evolutionary psychology of religion will inform you), but importantly from moral intuitions as well. We all understand that tribalism is not a rational deduction, we should understand that religion is not one either.
While I have sketched a picture of where I think religion fits into the landscape of human psychology, the practical question of what to do about it remains. But before I proceed, I’d like to take a moment to reflect on the empowering nature of the truth as revealed by science. With evolutionary psychology, we can finally develop an accurate understanding of the human condition and begin to grasp the nature of problems that have perennially plagued our species, like violence, warfare, tribalism, and even religion. Armed with knowledge and the hope of advancing human well-being, we can try and apply our learned insights rather than stumbling ignorantly and hopelessly, as our ancestors did for millennia, through circumstances which arose by the force of rationales that no one understood.
Taking religious claims to be more equivalent to “my tribe is the best” or “incest is disgusting” than to statements like “the sun is a thermonuclear furnace” does lead us towards the view that rational debate will only be of limited effectiveness in the battle against religion. The best things we can do are encourage self-refection and critical examination, massage other intuitions (like pointing out the myriad of situations in which religious dogma has stood as an obstacle to compassion), and try and explain religion as a natural phenomenon so that theists must confront the possibility that they are hard-wired for irrationality and credulity. In the countless battles against tribalism throughout human history, the tribal instinct has never been destroyed, but rather it has been modified. Our innate capacity for unity has not been eradicated, it has simply been expanded in a way that encompasses more people so that the reach of our empathy is greater than ever before. But perhaps with religion we can attain an even greater type of victory than that, by raising awareness about evolution and thus the need to question our cognitive predispositions.
Lastly, I want to return to the question of rational debate. Fundamentally I think debate is extremely important, even if it is not the most effective tool in winning over religious hearts and minds (though I do get the sense that it is rather efficacious with respect to convincing fence-sitters to become full-fledged atheists.) Of more importance than atheism’s triumph over religion is the liberal ideal of an open and honest society. By having debates about even the most controversial issues, we evince our dedication to free speech and intellectual progress. One of the most redeeming qualities of liberal societies is that there is nothing held off the table when it comes to critical inquiry and examination. I say it is not only a right, but a duty, for people to try and dismantle falsehoods and render irrationality naked and obvious wherever it is found. Some leftist commentators who are dogmatically dedicated to an over-blown definition of tolerance, like Robert Wright, insist that atheists who call religion on its untenable claims are being arrogant and offensive. But what could be of more value than our commitment to the free exchange of ideas? By refusing to succumb to the temptation to immunize even the most holy and sacred of ideas from criticism, we always leave open the possibility that someone in the future will be able to inform us of our errors. It is in the arena of rationality and the evaluation of competing claims where the truth is advanced and progress is made. As Christopher Hitchens often recites, you cannot have light without heat.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
The first step in addressing any problem is coming to understand the nature of the problem. Freethinkers can mostly agree that religion is irrational, but what is the nature of this irrationality? Often times, I see freethinkers treating religion as what is essentially a philosophy - and they accordingly hold it up to standards of logical rigor and academic competence. While this perspective is helpful in highlighting the illogical and absurd features of religions, it completely misses the mark in the way of offering an accurate explanation of religion. Religion as philosophy is a terrible model for understanding the phenomenon that we are trying to combat. When someone makes a ludicrous religious claim, it’s nothing like stating a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the given premises. Say you showed someone an apple and dropped it ten times in a row, and it fell to the floor each time. If the spectator responds to this observation by saying that apples rise rather than fall when dropped, that would be irrational - because the evidence suggests otherwise. Now, is religion anything like that? I think few would venture to answer yes to that question. Religious irrationality is of a fundamentally different kind than that. Religion is not merely bad philosophy. Religion must be understood as an outgrowth of evolved features of human psychology, and a product of what is in all likelihood the co-evolution of memes and genes. The capacity for religiosity exists in all of us, and is not just the result of poor reasoning, but a human universal that has been a defining feature of our nature for nearly as long as we have existed. Religion comes to us not through reason, but through intuition. And our intuitions are just a set of evolved faculties that come pre-installed in all of our brains.
While I think memetics can offer a valuable approach, I find myself parting ways with some who view it as a full and satisfactory explanation of religion. Memes don’t exist in a vacuum, they modify our intuitions and help give shape to the milieu of human psychology which has its basic features already outlined by genes. This is why I think it can be instructive to think of religion more like tribalism than say…flat earth theory. To continue to use the language of memes, one could say that American (or British, or French, or Chinese, etc.) nationalism is a meme. But it would be highly (and I would say perhaps dangerously) erroneous to conclude that belief in the superiority of the group one belongs to is merely a meme. While the specific flavour of tribalism is memetic, the capacity for tribalism is innate and universal in human beings. In the same way that tribal loyalty is internalized at a very young age, religion is seamlessly absorbed by the youth in a society. The sheer utility of tribalism in organizing human beings in mutually beneficial ways was all that was required for natural selection to favour the evolution of tribalistic beliefs, even if they didn’t match up with reality. Evolution favours brains that generate a useful model of reality, not necessarily an accurate one. An affinity for ritual might better capitalize on the placebo effect, for example. While there is a lot of dispute about the evolutionary adaptive value (if there is any at all) of religion, I think it’s important to make the point that the nature of all human beliefs are fundamentally designed to be instrumental in attaining survival and reproductive success.
Religion is not merely a worldview for people; it is an integral element of their identity that becomes enshrined in moral intuitions about adhering to the codes and practices of one’s tribe. One of the interesting findings of moral psychology has been that moral judgments are made impulsively and intuitively and then later offered rationalizations. We should not be surprised by the hyper-sensitivity religious people exhibit when it comes to criticism of religion, as it is an expected result of our evolved propensity to sanctify and dogmatically defend the social norms we internalize from our tribe. Belief in the religion that one is raised in should probably be conceived of less as a claim about the nature of the universe, and more as a moral claim. If we take the case of racism, it’s fairly obvious that racism was not really an empirical statement about differences between races, but a moral statement of which empirical justifications were later attempted to be produced for. I think it may be instructive to consider that belief in a religion stems primarily from a deep intuitive inclination that belief in that religion is intrinsically good, and that the justifications for the truth of the religion are offered as an after-thought. There is a period in childhood where children are like impressionable sponges that absorb information from peers and authorities, so that they can profit from the discoveries of their ancestors and internalize the norms of their tribe that will allow them to successfully navigate both their social and ecological landscape; the fact that religious indoctrination occurs during this period should be insightful in understanding the type of belief that religiosity is. The religious mentality, like the mentality of tribalism, was not invented by memes, but arises from evolved intuitions - and not just intuitions about the nature of the world around us (though these were certainly instrumental in the formation of religion, as the Wikipedia article on the evolutionary psychology of religion will inform you), but importantly from moral intuitions as well. We all understand that tribalism is not a rational deduction, we should understand that religion is not one either.
While I have sketched a picture of where I think religion fits into the landscape of human psychology, the practical question of what to do about it remains. But before I proceed, I’d like to take a moment to reflect on the empowering nature of the truth as revealed by science. With evolutionary psychology, we can finally develop an accurate understanding of the human condition and begin to grasp the nature of problems that have perennially plagued our species, like violence, warfare, tribalism, and even religion. Armed with knowledge and the hope of advancing human well-being, we can try and apply our learned insights rather than stumbling ignorantly and hopelessly, as our ancestors did for millennia, through circumstances which arose by the force of rationales that no one understood.
Taking religious claims to be more equivalent to “my tribe is the best” or “incest is disgusting” than to statements like “the sun is a thermonuclear furnace” does lead us towards the view that rational debate will only be of limited effectiveness in the battle against religion. The best things we can do are encourage self-refection and critical examination, massage other intuitions (like pointing out the myriad of situations in which religious dogma has stood as an obstacle to compassion), and try and explain religion as a natural phenomenon so that theists must confront the possibility that they are hard-wired for irrationality and credulity. In the countless battles against tribalism throughout human history, the tribal instinct has never been destroyed, but rather it has been modified. Our innate capacity for unity has not been eradicated, it has simply been expanded in a way that encompasses more people so that the reach of our empathy is greater than ever before. But perhaps with religion we can attain an even greater type of victory than that, by raising awareness about evolution and thus the need to question our cognitive predispositions.
Lastly, I want to return to the question of rational debate. Fundamentally I think debate is extremely important, even if it is not the most effective tool in winning over religious hearts and minds (though I do get the sense that it is rather efficacious with respect to convincing fence-sitters to become full-fledged atheists.) Of more importance than atheism’s triumph over religion is the liberal ideal of an open and honest society. By having debates about even the most controversial issues, we evince our dedication to free speech and intellectual progress. One of the most redeeming qualities of liberal societies is that there is nothing held off the table when it comes to critical inquiry and examination. I say it is not only a right, but a duty, for people to try and dismantle falsehoods and render irrationality naked and obvious wherever it is found. Some leftist commentators who are dogmatically dedicated to an over-blown definition of tolerance, like Robert Wright, insist that atheists who call religion on its untenable claims are being arrogant and offensive. But what could be of more value than our commitment to the free exchange of ideas? By refusing to succumb to the temptation to immunize even the most holy and sacred of ideas from criticism, we always leave open the possibility that someone in the future will be able to inform us of our errors. It is in the arena of rationality and the evaluation of competing claims where the truth is advanced and progress is made. As Christopher Hitchens often recites, you cannot have light without heat.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Bullying In The Church
A news story I’ve just been alerted to is perhaps a simple demonstration that religion does not make you a better person. The workers union Unite has identified ‘a culture of bullying in the established Church’ according to the Times (link here).
You might expect a religious work place, since believers are far better at morality than us atheists and agnostics, to be a pleasant working environment. It appears not. The petty and damaging human characteristics that lead to untold harm for many are present in Churches too.
A frightening example of this are the highly unpleasant events that occurred to the unfortunate Mr. Sharpe. The Times article reads:
Last month Unite called for the resignation of two bishops after claiming that a vicar, Mark Sharpe, had been forced out of his home and job in the Worcester diocese by what the union described as “a culture of neglect and bullying”. His departure with his family came after four years of alleged harassment, during which the family’s pet dog was fatally poisoned, faeces was smeared on his car and his tyres were slashed twice.
Mr. Sharpe was forced into an early retirement due to ill health at age 42.
The Archbishop Of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, had this to say about bullying:
“I have good reason to know from pastoral contacts with people how much of an issue it can be and I wish we were better at that.”
From an institution that must claim moral superiority over non-believers not open to salvation, this simply is not good enough. The Church needs to address the immoral actions of its flocks before condemning the rest of us to their proselytizing.
You might expect a religious work place, since believers are far better at morality than us atheists and agnostics, to be a pleasant working environment. It appears not. The petty and damaging human characteristics that lead to untold harm for many are present in Churches too.
A frightening example of this are the highly unpleasant events that occurred to the unfortunate Mr. Sharpe. The Times article reads:
Last month Unite called for the resignation of two bishops after claiming that a vicar, Mark Sharpe, had been forced out of his home and job in the Worcester diocese by what the union described as “a culture of neglect and bullying”. His departure with his family came after four years of alleged harassment, during which the family’s pet dog was fatally poisoned, faeces was smeared on his car and his tyres were slashed twice.
Mr. Sharpe was forced into an early retirement due to ill health at age 42.
The Archbishop Of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, had this to say about bullying:
“I have good reason to know from pastoral contacts with people how much of an issue it can be and I wish we were better at that.”
From an institution that must claim moral superiority over non-believers not open to salvation, this simply is not good enough. The Church needs to address the immoral actions of its flocks before condemning the rest of us to their proselytizing.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Atheism & The Search For Meaning
It is a persistent claim of those who fail to comprehend just how atheists can go on living in such a bleak universe, that their life is devoid of meaning, and thus not worth living. Religion provides meaning. Religion is, in some ways, a vehicle in order to provide to meaning. Religion always offers the chance of something else. After death, there is another life, but that is determined by our actions in this one. Meaning, for the religious mind, consists entirely in appeasing your particular God or gods in order that you get a good deal for the rest of eternity. The moral value present in this kind of life is highly suspect. If the Bible commanded murder (it does in fact, but that’s an aside) believers would be required to do it. The meaning of their life would be to kill. Incidentally, the Bible is interpreted as saying things like ‘do good to others’ and ‘care for your neighbour’ etc. Meaning is dictated, not created. However, it is, unarguably meaning.
But what are atheists to do? There is no one commanding you to refrain from your own nature. Nor is there anyone commanding you to treat others as you would treat yourself. Neither is there any kind of 'spiritual' principle. Life is absent of an external guide. What startles many people is just why, or how, atheists can and do go on, living seemingly happy and fulfilled lives. Perhaps many would believe that they truly cannot. Their rejection of God (or gods) excludes them of any privilege of purpose. The answer the atheist usually gives is this: I create my own meaning.
This idea is most closely identified with the philosophical and literary movement conveniently labelled existentialism. In what will most likely end as the man’s entire legacy, Jean Paul Sartre summed the thought up in three words: ‘being precedes essence’. There are many interpretations and nuisances of Sartre’s work as a whole and of this quote in particular, but the broad meaning of this phrase becomes pretty clear after some thought. Our meaning, or ‘essence’, what the purpose of our lives is, what we must fulfil or carry out, comes after we are born. We're here before we know why. We exist prior to our acknowledgement of this fact. At some point that realisation hits. Albert Camus, when brilliantly championing the absurdist cause in The Myth of Sisyphus, writes this wonderfully poetic description of a similar kind of awakening:
So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.
The religious believer remains in a primitive state. Without thinking, they accept, or are indoctrinated by, the meaning they are given at birth. More concerned and doubtful Christians have solved the problem with a ‘leap of faith’. Camus regards this move as mistaken. The question that concerns him in his essay is that of suicide. Meaning is gone; so why not end my own life? He feels the only proper response to this truth is one of rebellion. Suicide is the equivalent to admitting defeat of a universe devoid of cosmic sanction. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder to the top of a hill, whereupon it would instantly fall to the bottom and Sisyphus would have no choice but to push it back up all over again for eternity. This is a metaphor that Camus struck upon and utilised. A metaphor for life – one of ultimately meaningless struggle. But, says Camus, ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’.
To what extent does atheism necessitate an absurdist or existential outlook? A life without meaning of any kind does seem futile. But why exactly must this meaning come from anywhere other than ourselves or our reason? All individuals do find meaning in their lives somehow; whether they deny it or not; the atheist is no different – except that they must create their own. Atheism does require some form of very basic existential belief. The picture of that school of thought shown in this essay is incomplete and not in any wider context, but it is not out of spirit.
In the words of a even more modern thinker ‘who ties up their life with the ultimate fate of the cosmos?’. When it is put like that, things do become clear. Only the insane or supremely self-elevated would do such a thing. Contemplation and recognition of an indifferent world is not to be shunned, but when making a moral decision, why should it intervene at all?
Cold-heartedness is often attributed to scientific thought. Though I may have given the impression in this essay that I agree with this view, I see it as mistaken. Grand indifference, I find, both exhilarating and liberating. The greatest crime against reason I have so far noticed, is the lack of a particular image around the world. It should be placed in every public place and known to all virtually from birth. The Pale Blue Dot is the ultimate giver of perspective.
And where does meaning fit in on the 0.12 pixels? All over it. But what is truly startling is that, at present, those 0.12 pixels are the only place known where meaning exists in the entire universe. Is that not enough?
But what are atheists to do? There is no one commanding you to refrain from your own nature. Nor is there anyone commanding you to treat others as you would treat yourself. Neither is there any kind of 'spiritual' principle. Life is absent of an external guide. What startles many people is just why, or how, atheists can and do go on, living seemingly happy and fulfilled lives. Perhaps many would believe that they truly cannot. Their rejection of God (or gods) excludes them of any privilege of purpose. The answer the atheist usually gives is this: I create my own meaning.
This idea is most closely identified with the philosophical and literary movement conveniently labelled existentialism. In what will most likely end as the man’s entire legacy, Jean Paul Sartre summed the thought up in three words: ‘being precedes essence’. There are many interpretations and nuisances of Sartre’s work as a whole and of this quote in particular, but the broad meaning of this phrase becomes pretty clear after some thought. Our meaning, or ‘essence’, what the purpose of our lives is, what we must fulfil or carry out, comes after we are born. We're here before we know why. We exist prior to our acknowledgement of this fact. At some point that realisation hits. Albert Camus, when brilliantly championing the absurdist cause in The Myth of Sisyphus, writes this wonderfully poetic description of a similar kind of awakening:
So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.
The religious believer remains in a primitive state. Without thinking, they accept, or are indoctrinated by, the meaning they are given at birth. More concerned and doubtful Christians have solved the problem with a ‘leap of faith’. Camus regards this move as mistaken. The question that concerns him in his essay is that of suicide. Meaning is gone; so why not end my own life? He feels the only proper response to this truth is one of rebellion. Suicide is the equivalent to admitting defeat of a universe devoid of cosmic sanction. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder to the top of a hill, whereupon it would instantly fall to the bottom and Sisyphus would have no choice but to push it back up all over again for eternity. This is a metaphor that Camus struck upon and utilised. A metaphor for life – one of ultimately meaningless struggle. But, says Camus, ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’.
To what extent does atheism necessitate an absurdist or existential outlook? A life without meaning of any kind does seem futile. But why exactly must this meaning come from anywhere other than ourselves or our reason? All individuals do find meaning in their lives somehow; whether they deny it or not; the atheist is no different – except that they must create their own. Atheism does require some form of very basic existential belief. The picture of that school of thought shown in this essay is incomplete and not in any wider context, but it is not out of spirit.
In the words of a even more modern thinker ‘who ties up their life with the ultimate fate of the cosmos?’. When it is put like that, things do become clear. Only the insane or supremely self-elevated would do such a thing. Contemplation and recognition of an indifferent world is not to be shunned, but when making a moral decision, why should it intervene at all?
Cold-heartedness is often attributed to scientific thought. Though I may have given the impression in this essay that I agree with this view, I see it as mistaken. Grand indifference, I find, both exhilarating and liberating. The greatest crime against reason I have so far noticed, is the lack of a particular image around the world. It should be placed in every public place and known to all virtually from birth. The Pale Blue Dot is the ultimate giver of perspective.
And where does meaning fit in on the 0.12 pixels? All over it. But what is truly startling is that, at present, those 0.12 pixels are the only place known where meaning exists in the entire universe. Is that not enough?
Friday, 13 November 2009
Who's Moral?
This post is adapted from a speech written by Alex Shaw. Alex is 17 years old and from Augusta, Georgia. He attended Church for the first 16 years of his life and 'came out' to his parents one year ago. Alex will soon be attending college and plans to study religion at grad school. Enjoy!
Religious individuals often claim that, without religion, a significant amount of morality is lost within culture, when in fact, if one were to follow the Bible’s morality to the letter, we’d have stoned kids, stoned gays, and stoned adulterers. Today, when someone reads the Bible, they apply their own morality, the morality of the modern day to the ‘Word of God’. It’s a concept known as ‘cherry picking’, or simply taking the good and leaving the bad. Either God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, his word in biblical form is unquestionable and we follow its every word and stone gays, or there are holes and incongruities in the Holy Book and its law should not be followed. It’s just false to assert that Jesus established a new covenant and that the law of the Old Testament was no longer needed – Matthew 5:17-19.
I realize there are many moderate Christians who selectively chose what they do believe and what they don’t believe about the contents of the Bible. Most Christians, who believe the Bible is the 'Word of God', do not believe that their Jewish friend or Muslim friend will go to Hell because they lead a good life and are, overall, a good person. However, the ‘Word of God’ begs to differ – John 15:4-6. Yes, ok, so the word of the Christian saviour condemns a host of good people solely because they don’t abide in Jesus, but the moderate Christians chose not to believe this because their God is a benevolent God and would never do such a thing. They have committed a grievous error. They have applied their own standards of morality and reason to God’s. If you are able to read the ‘Word of God’ and decide for yourself what is right or wrong, then you do not need a book of divine origins to define your morals, you simply need more books with more situations from which you can figure out your own beliefs. You have, in effect, nullified the need for a supernatural decree of any kind, seeing as how you had no problem believing against the teachings of ‘your’ saviour in the first place.
And if this or that portion of the 'Word of God' is invalid, why is any authority lent to any portion of the Bible? The golden rule is good not because it is of Godly descent, but because it is an exceptional way for any man or woman to lead their life. In the same way, stoning rebellious children for disobeying their parents is not a good rule, not because it too is of Godly descent, but because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life.
To state that religion is necessary or even relevant to someone leading a good life isn't an accurate statement. Plenty of atheists have good moral codes, just as many believers have bad ones. People often cite governments without religion such as those of Stalin and Hitler to show what can go wrong if religion is essentially removed from government. But one has to ask the question, "Was it their atheism that moved them to slaughter the innocent?" The obvious answer is no. No one that I'm aware of has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Think of all the bad in world that has been done in the name of God or Allah before asserting anything about religion being necessary for morality.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.
Religious individuals often claim that, without religion, a significant amount of morality is lost within culture, when in fact, if one were to follow the Bible’s morality to the letter, we’d have stoned kids, stoned gays, and stoned adulterers. Today, when someone reads the Bible, they apply their own morality, the morality of the modern day to the ‘Word of God’. It’s a concept known as ‘cherry picking’, or simply taking the good and leaving the bad. Either God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, his word in biblical form is unquestionable and we follow its every word and stone gays, or there are holes and incongruities in the Holy Book and its law should not be followed. It’s just false to assert that Jesus established a new covenant and that the law of the Old Testament was no longer needed – Matthew 5:17-19.
I realize there are many moderate Christians who selectively chose what they do believe and what they don’t believe about the contents of the Bible. Most Christians, who believe the Bible is the 'Word of God', do not believe that their Jewish friend or Muslim friend will go to Hell because they lead a good life and are, overall, a good person. However, the ‘Word of God’ begs to differ – John 15:4-6. Yes, ok, so the word of the Christian saviour condemns a host of good people solely because they don’t abide in Jesus, but the moderate Christians chose not to believe this because their God is a benevolent God and would never do such a thing. They have committed a grievous error. They have applied their own standards of morality and reason to God’s. If you are able to read the ‘Word of God’ and decide for yourself what is right or wrong, then you do not need a book of divine origins to define your morals, you simply need more books with more situations from which you can figure out your own beliefs. You have, in effect, nullified the need for a supernatural decree of any kind, seeing as how you had no problem believing against the teachings of ‘your’ saviour in the first place.
And if this or that portion of the 'Word of God' is invalid, why is any authority lent to any portion of the Bible? The golden rule is good not because it is of Godly descent, but because it is an exceptional way for any man or woman to lead their life. In the same way, stoning rebellious children for disobeying their parents is not a good rule, not because it too is of Godly descent, but because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life.
To state that religion is necessary or even relevant to someone leading a good life isn't an accurate statement. Plenty of atheists have good moral codes, just as many believers have bad ones. People often cite governments without religion such as those of Stalin and Hitler to show what can go wrong if religion is essentially removed from government. But one has to ask the question, "Was it their atheism that moved them to slaughter the innocent?" The obvious answer is no. No one that I'm aware of has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Think of all the bad in world that has been done in the name of God or Allah before asserting anything about religion being necessary for morality.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
