The following is a response to a Christian who claimed that I, as an atheist, had no grounds on which to claim that an objective morality exists. He also went on to attempt to justify the slavery, genocide, and rape that god commands in the Bible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is a pretty easy word to throw around. It should be obvious that in order to discuss morality, we must define it. After all, a statement like "If there is NO God, there is no BASIS for morality. PERIOD!!" is meaningless if we have two different ideas of what 'morality' means.
So I'll start by critiquing some common definitions.
We could take a naive approach, and say that morality is doing what god says to do. This, of course, creates the Euthyphro dilemma, of which I'm sure you are aware. Are god's orders good because god says so? If so, might makes right. Or are his orders good because they are part of a class of actions that promote well-being? If so, god is irrelevant in morality. Please don't feel like you need to respond to this dilemma. I haven't yet read any argument that fully resolves the issue, so I don't expect you'd be the first to do so. But even beyond that, I don't think any moral action taken due to a command on high is worthy of the label "moral".
We could view morality as a selective task between doing actions that are wrong and doing actions that are right. This requires that one is able to distinguish between a right and wrong action. To this end, several religions have created lists of actions that are right, and lists of actions that are wrong. These lists, which they claim come from god, form the basis of their claim to objective morality. This claim of objective morality remains especially popular among apologists, such as yourself. But what a useless and dangerous idea this is! I'd strongly oppose the formation of any such list. Consider the currently most popular of such lists: the ten commandments. Some of these rules are generally good ideas. But not always!
The 8th commandment prohibits theft. But what if the thief has stolen an antidote from a dictator bent on introducing poison into the water supply of a slum? Was stealing wrong?
The 5th commandment says to honor one's father and mother. But what if one's father is a child molester? Or what if one's mother is addicted to heroin and sells the body of her 12 year old daughter in order to buy drugs? Should they be honored?
The 6th commandment says thou shall not kill. My work here is already done by the conservative Christians who have already mentally manipulated "thou shall not kill" and "turn the other cheek" to allow them to support the execution of criminals.
Clearly, lists are worthless. The moral action is situational. Knowing the moral action requires reflection on the circumstances and possible outcomes; not a handy-dandy list of do's and don'ts.
So if morality isn't just whatever god says, and isn't a list of right and wrong actions, what is it? Morality is a set of conditions which allows for the maximum well-being for the maximum number of living beings. Remember, I believe that an objective morality exists. You were quick to spot I used the word "acknowledged". I choose my words more carefully than you give me credit for!
I said that an objective morality exists. I never said we had access to it.
Consider this analogy:
Imagine that the goal of humankind was to construct the tallest building possible in the shortest time possible. Such an endeavor would probably drain Earth of all its natural resources. This would be a massive task, requiring several levels of detailed strategy. There has to be one architectural design which could produce the tallest height. There must be one single way for people and resources to move the most effective and efficiently. There must be one location on Earth best suited as ground zero for this project. Sure, there are probably going to be several suggestions that seem equally reasonable. But we're talking about the strategy that actually works best, not out ability to recognize or conceive of that strategy. That strategy is objective; it exists without coming from any one or anything and without being recognized by any one or anything. Our task, then, is the endeavor to subjectively discover what that objective best strategy is, to the best of our ability.
The same is true of morality. There is most definitely one set of conditions here on Earth that could produce the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. Those conditions are objective; they exist without coming from anyone or anything and without being recognized by any one or anything. Our human moral task is to create subjective moralities which we believe correspond most closely to that single objective moral reality.
It's the same with knowledge, and moral knowledge is a just another form of knowledge.
So far, I've only defined morality and shown how an objectively true morality can exist without a god. I haven't actually said anything about how one goes about constructing their personal morality, or about what actions I believe to be moral.
There's no clear method of determining right and wrong which is guaranteed to always yield results which are actually objectively morally correct. Evolutionary instinct, the ability to reason abstractly about justice and fairness, and empathy are among the best tools at our disposal. Humans, unfortunately, have used some of the worst methods of making such determinations; namely, trial-and error. Slavery is a good example because humanity so clearly and radically changed it view on it relatively recently.
On a related side note, if you're going to be dishonest about what the Bible says, be aware that I can read as well as you (I just do so through a less distorted lens). God orders the Jews to commit genocide, sparing no man or child, and slicing open the stomachs of pregnant women, but allowing his soldiers to keep the virgin women for themselves. Not only does god condone slavery, he gives commands on who one can enslave, how long you can enslave them for, how to mark them as your property, and how often and severely you can beat them. It's absurd, dishonest, and childish to claim the bible doesn't say what I can plainly read, or that it must be interpreted differently. The bible was the rallying-cry for Southern slave-owners who invoked their god-given right to own other people as property. The fact that you can find and list some sentences that seem to contradict the clear biblical commands on slavery is not a license to claim those other verses weren't serious. It's simply an obvious indication of the history of the bible as a collection of books from different authors, in different times, with different values. Of course they're going to contradict! Your attempt to spin the bible in light of your modern moral view reminds of George Bernard Shaw: "No man ever thinks the bible means what it says; he is always convinced it says what he means."
It seems all that's left is the issue of what, specifically, I find to be moral. But, what is the point in that? I, unlike many religious folk, am not going to tell you what's right and expect that you obey it. Your moral quest is one of discovery and is necessarily personal. To that end, I feel it is much more helpful to me to share what breaks my heart about you.
You're clearly a smart person who's invested much time in being able to provide reasons for your beliefs. It greatly depresses me, then, to see such intellect and work going to justify something so obviously and universally evil. I think an alien from another galaxy would be able to easily tell that genocide is evil; that the killing of children and babies is evil; that the raping of captured women and the ripping open of pregnant stomachs is evil.
And yet you defend it, because your god said to do it.
Don't you see that you've sacrificed your humanity, your ability to empathize and love and feel and care and respect other people and their right to life, when you seek to justify genocide? Your defenses are depressingly weak. "They blasphemed; they disobeyed; they were violent". Wow. So what? God created people with the free will to disobey him, but if they exercise that free will, gee, he just might have to kill pregnant women and children?
This is a morally disgusting, detestable, unspeakable form of evil. And to see a smart, hard-working, modern person say that 'no, it's actually ok' breaks my heart. I'm literally choking back tears. I don't care if it's an animal, human, or god taking the action:
Killing a child is wrong.
Killing an infant is wrong.
Cutting open the belly of a pregnant women and throwing out the fetus is wrong.
Keeping virgins for the soldiers is wrong.
You know these things to be true. I know that you know they're true.
You're telling me that the ONLY way the all-powerful, all-knowing, and supposedly benevolent creator of the universe could deal with sin was to order the mass extermination of men, women, and children?
You're smarter than that.
If god appeared to me, told me that every bit of the bible was true, and asked me to worship him, I'd give him the finger for the evils he had done and commanded.
That's the moral action.
Don't be a slave. Don't be a coward. Don't sacrifice your morality.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
My take on the moral argument
"The final argument I’ll give you is, I feel, the most important. It’s the moral argument.
1. Unless there is an objective moral authority there cannot be objective moral absolutes.
2. There are objective moral absolutes.
3. Therefore an objective universal moral authority exists.
The atheist, on this point, is wrong to justify being kind rather than cruel, or to be nice rather than mean, or to be helpful rather than selfish.
If there is no God then there are no moral absolutes. Thus you get ethical subjectivism or ethical relativism.
Ethical relativism is the view that right and wrong are established be the time and culture in which people live. For example, if a culture thinks it’s right to rape woman then we can’t say they are wrong in doing so. All we can say is it’s right for them and wrong for us. That’s absurd. The problems with ethical relativism are as follows.
1. The relativist wants to say that there are no absolute truths about morals. (This is self refuting as it is a moral statement)
2. It’s usually difficult to determine what a culture is.
3. If there are two cultures which one is the normative one, which one is the authoritative one?
4. How many people in a culture have to think something is wrong before it’s wrong?
5. If the majority says it’s right, what if the majority says Relativism is wrong?
Ethical subjectivism is the belief that right and wrong are simply the matter of ones own feeling, tastes, preferences, etc. So the atheist can’t say that any one behavior or act is preferable over another."
I'll make my position clear right from the get-go:
I'm an atheist, and moral absolutes exist.
(To be honest, I don't like that phrasing. I simply have an avoidance of the word "absolute", because to me it signifies a kind of arrogance. I'm much more comfortable saying that I believe right and wrong answers to moral questions exist, which means essentially the same thing.)
It should be obvious, then, that my disagreement lies with premise one. I would not ever describe myself as a moral or ethical relativist. I do believe that moral absolutes can and do exist with no need for a moral authority. How can this be so? Well, let's begin with definitions:
It is clear that not everyone believes that morality consists of the same actions. A suicide bomber thinks death for Allah is a moral action. I do not. We both claim that our version of morality is more true. This scenario can be found in the comparison of almost any two human beings. People simply have different ideas about which actions are moral, and which actions are immoral. So in that subjective sense, moral relativism is an obvious truth. The actions or thoughts labeled as moral and immoral change relative to the person in question. It is these views that are subject to factors in culture, upbringing, trauma, religion, etc. I will use a lowercase m when discussing this personal, subjective morality.
But I don't believe that all moralities are equally right, or even worthy of equal respect. Certain moralities are more or less right, because right answers to moral questions exist. Now it becomes necessary for me to define this "right-or-wrong" style morality I'm speaking of, and it is on this definition that my argument hinges. It is clear that actions taken by humans have affects on other conscious beings. Some of these effects lower the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings, and some raise the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings. I define (absolute) morality as those actions which result in the best possible scenario of life, that is, the maximum happiness and maximum quality of life, for the greatest number of conscious beings. So clearly, actions can be split into two categories: those which lower the maximum good for the maximum beings, and those which raise the maximum good for the maximum beings. From now on, I'll use an uppercase M when referring this Morality.
I understand the objections to this view:
"How can we know which actions will result in the maximum good for the maximum people?"
-This is good point. Sam Harris, for example, hopes that since the maximum good is a condition created by certain types of behavior across society, science will one day be able to discover and list these conditions. I'm skeptical of his enthusiasm and don't know how science can develop methodology to study this ethically, but he is right, at least in theory. It is possible to observe which actions result in the greatest good for the greatest number of beings. Humans have been doing it for a long time, and we've learned some pretty useful things about Morality. We're discovering Morality all the time, albeit to different degrees between cultures and individuals. It is now almost uniformly agreed that the owning of another human being as property is immoral. But go back 200 or 300 years, and very few people indeed would find this immoral. Does this mean Morals are relative? No! (though morals are). Slavery is Morally wrong today, it was Morally wrong 200 years ago, and it was Morally wrong when Yahweh commanded it. (And don't say he didn't...it's in the bible, after all.) It is clear why slavery is Morally wrong: it robs people of happiness and a good quality of life, it does not create the maximum good for the maximum number of people.
So although we lack a streamlined process to discover Moral truth, we are able to do so in our own slow, trial-and-error way.
"Morality requires an authority"
-I've tried to explain that Morality does not need an authority, and hopefully I've done so in a clear manner. If we take this criticism as truth, however, we run in to more problems. I'm sure anyone who's ever studied philosophy knows Euthyphro's Dilemma. Does the divine command Moral actions because they are Moral? If so, the divine merely support that which is already Morally true. Or are Moral actions simply whatever the divine commands? If so, Morality is no more than the arbitrary dictates of the divine. I've never read a sufficient theistic response to this dilemma. But at any rate, it doesn't apply in my discussion of Morality.
"If we can't always know which actions are Moral, how can one ever construct a Moral code?"
-I'm reminded of the quotation from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies: "They're more like guidelines.."
I'm very skeptical that the formation of an absolute Moral code is a worthwhile or even good endeavor. I'm more keen to liken my view of Moral truth to my epistemological view of truth in general. We may never know absolute Morality or absolute Truth, but we can use evidence and reason in order to construct the best approximation possible for both of these. We are able to say what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, based on a scale of probabilities, rather than unjustified certainties. So yes, unfortunately, we can never accumulate all the relevant data to understand and codify an absolute Morality. That is why morality exists; it is an individual's (theoretically) best attempt at understanding Morality. If we were to construct a code, such as the Ten Commandments, it would only, at best, serve as the best approximation of Morality currently available. It certainly would not be Morality itself. Sticking only with the Ten Commandments, we can find several exceptions to these rules:
For example, "Thou shall not kill/murder."
Imagine you are stationed at the switch of a railway intersection. The approaching train is on track to turn left. However, to the left are three people tied to the track. If you throw the switch, the train will go right, and unfortunately, right off a cliff. The conductor is the only person on the train. What is the Moral action? To throw the switch is to inevitably cause the death of the conductor. To not throw the switch is to passively allow the death of three people. Even though you will be killing the conductor, the Moral action is to throw the switch. This contradicts an absolute command to never kill, however, highlighting the foolishness of a single code.
Or another example, "Thou shall not steal"
What if an evil dictator has released poison into the water supply of an impoverished neighborhood, and he alone is housing the antidote in his government headquarters? As you family and neighborhood gets sick, the Moral option is to break in and steal the antidote.
Even these seemingly obvious moral standards have exceptions, and a code is not a good idea. What should we use to guide our moral actions then? Reason. Unfortunately for some unfamiliar with tough thought who'd prefer a code, discovering Morality is a sometimes tricky and thought-provoking business. Our only way to discern right from wrong is to use our experience and our reason, and not to rely on authority, codes, or commandments. Morality is to be discovered, not commanded. If one only follows rules blindly because they believe such rules have been commanded from a reputable source, I'd argue that their actions are not based on true Morality but only on obedience. Coming to know Morality requires critical and independent thought, not unthinking deference.
So I, as an atheist, AM able to justify being kind rather than cruel, nice rather than mean, and helpful rather than selfish, and I'm able to say why these types of actions are preferable. These are the types of actions that evidence and reason tell us result in an increase in well-being, of goodness, and happiness for conscious beings. So long as I care about my fellow man and woman, as well as my own well-being, that is all the justification I or anyone needs.
And, since I know the objection, I do realize that not everyone does care for their fellow human beings. Those are frankly immoral people. And genuine care for others cannot be commanded by an authority, or forced by threats. Care for others based on those reasons, (the reasons religion offers) only create obedience. Genuine care must be fostered and nurtured through the interactions of humans everywhere. How to go about that...is a topic for another day.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Ontological Argument, refuted.
My first post in over a year...shocking I know! But I'm currently engaged in an email conversation with an intelligent theist I (so far) respect. Thus I'm taking enough care with my responses that I feel I should put them up on the internet for all to see. This person presented with my four arguments for the existence of a god: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. I'll be responding to each in turn over the next week or so. Here is my first response, concerning the ontological argument. Enjoy!
"The ontological argument, which might be the hardest to comprehend, is as follows:
1. If God exists then god would be the greatest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. God exists at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if God exists only subjectively, then he is not the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality (Objectively) as well as in the mind (Subjectively)"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can certainly see the appeal of this argument to one who already believes that a god exists; it's elegant and surprisingly charming. But despite the cuteness of the logic, there exist several flaws that leave the argument underwhelming. I'll discuss a few of the flaws I find most important.
Thanks to the phrasing of the first premise, it escapes the common flaw of treating existence as an attribute of a thing, rather than the condition that allows for attributes to apply. I don't have a problem with the first premise (for now).
The second premise contains some problems concerning the definition of "greatness". It is simply asserted that objective existence is greater than subjective existence, but this is not explained or justified. How is greatness defined, in this context? How is greatness measured here? What data are we using under this definition of greatness to compare relative 'greatnesses' that allow for this conclusion? This premise also plays into a fallacy of equivocation, but this is more clearly seen in step 4, so I'll skip to there.
Step four is where things break down, even if the validity of the three premises is granted. When we speak of an objective god, which the argument tries to prove, we're speaking about something that exists in reality outside of the mind. We're talking about a being. When we speak of a "subjective god", we're no longer speaking about a god external of the mind, and we're not talking about a being. We're talking about the concept of a god. You're already aware of this distinction, as indicated by the use of the phrase "idea in the mind" in step 3. The argument tries to compare existences of two different things: concepts and beings. Concepts don't exist in the way beings do, and beings do not exist in the way concepts do. There are not concepts outside of the mind, and there are not beings inside of the mind. So comparing the existences of these two is a categorical error.
In light of the criticisms so far, I'll restate the argument as I see it:
1. If god exists as a being, god would be the greatest being. --OK.
2. Beings are greater than concepts. --Why?
3. A concept of god exists. --OK.
4. If god is only a concept, he is not a being. --True.
5. God exists as a being, because he exists as a concept. --No.
Whichever way it is phrased, either your way or my simplified way, step 4 is obviously true: a concept is not a being. The argument then uses the yet unjustified assertion that beings are greater than concepts to conclude that god exists as a being simply because he exists as a concept. It completely ignores that concepts and beings are different in nature and in their type of existence. It's a fallacy. Noting that the concept of the greatest possible being exists does not allow one to conclude that any real beings exist that match the definition of that concept.
The argument tries to prove god by virtue of a definition. It seeks to define him into existence. The same logical steps can be applied to "prove" the objective existence of anything (if we allow for the implicit fallacies). For example:
1. If unicorns exist, they have the greatest horns of any animal.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. Unicorns and their great horns exist at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if unicorns exist only subjectively, their horns are not the greatest of any animal.
5. Therefore, unicorns must exist in reality as well as in the mind.
Or:
1. If "Gouda" exists, then he would be the smelliest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is to smell worse than to exist as a concept of smelliness in the mind.
3. We can conceive of the idea of the smelliest possible being.
4. But if Gouda's smelliness exists only in the mind, he is not the smelliest possible being.
5. Therefore, Gouda and his foul stench must exist objectively as well as in the mind.
In either case, I've only "proven" the existence of the subject by its own definition. Like I said, the existence of the concept does not allow one to conclude that a real being exists to match that concept. One cannot establish the objective existence of anything by examining its subjective definition as a concept.
That's about all I have to say on the argument, save one final point which I am completely confident will be met with criticism. Even if the argument were valid and successfully proved the existence of a god, it would at the same time disprove the existence of the Christian god. This is because the Christian god is not at all close to the greatest being one can conceive of. The greatest being I can conceive of would not carry out, command, and endorse genocide, infanticide, and slavery. I'm not too keen on beginning biblical criticism this early in the discussion, so hopefully the contents of the bible is a topic we can agree to save for a later date. But, it's up to you, since I opened my big mouth about it!
"The ontological argument, which might be the hardest to comprehend, is as follows:
1. If God exists then god would be the greatest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. God exists at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if God exists only subjectively, then he is not the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality (Objectively) as well as in the mind (Subjectively)"
------------------------------
I can certainly see the appeal of this argument to one who already believes that a god exists; it's elegant and surprisingly charming. But despite the cuteness of the logic, there exist several flaws that leave the argument underwhelming. I'll discuss a few of the flaws I find most important.
Thanks to the phrasing of the first premise, it escapes the common flaw of treating existence as an attribute of a thing, rather than the condition that allows for attributes to apply. I don't have a problem with the first premise (for now).
The second premise contains some problems concerning the definition of "greatness". It is simply asserted that objective existence is greater than subjective existence, but this is not explained or justified. How is greatness defined, in this context? How is greatness measured here? What data are we using under this definition of greatness to compare relative 'greatnesses' that allow for this conclusion? This premise also plays into a fallacy of equivocation, but this is more clearly seen in step 4, so I'll skip to there.
Step four is where things break down, even if the validity of the three premises is granted. When we speak of an objective god, which the argument tries to prove, we're speaking about something that exists in reality outside of the mind. We're talking about a being. When we speak of a "subjective god", we're no longer speaking about a god external of the mind, and we're not talking about a being. We're talking about the concept of a god. You're already aware of this distinction, as indicated by the use of the phrase "idea in the mind" in step 3.
In light of the criticisms so far, I'll restate the argument as I see it:
1. If god exists as a being, god would be the greatest being. --OK.
2. Beings are greater than concepts. --Why?
3. A concept of god exists.
4. If god is only a concept, he is not a being. --True.
5. God exists as a being, because he exists as a concept. --No.
Whichever way it is phrased, either your way or my simplified way, step 4 is obviously true: a concept is not a being. The argument then uses the yet unjustified assertion that beings are greater than concepts to conclude that god exists as a being simply because he exists as a concept. It completely ignores that concepts and beings are different in nature and in their type of existence. It's a fallacy. Noting that the concept of the greatest possible being exists does not allow one to conclude that any real beings exist that match the definition of that concept.
The argument tries to prove god by virtue of a definition. It seeks to define him into existence. The same logical steps can be applied to "prove" the objective existence of anything (if we allow for the implicit fallacies). For example:
1. If unicorns exist, they have the greatest horns of any animal.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. Unicorns and their great horns exist at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if unicorns exist only subjectively, their horns are not the greatest of any animal.
5. Therefore, unicorns must exist in reality as well as in the mind.
Or:
1. If "Gouda" exists, then he would be the smelliest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is to smell worse than to exist as a concept of smelliness in the mind.
3. We can conceive of the idea of the smelliest possible being.
4. But if Gouda's smelliness exists only in the mind, he is not the smelliest possible being.
5. Therefore, Gouda and his foul stench must exist objectively as well as in the mind.
In either case, I've only "proven" the existence of the subject by its own definition. Like I said, the existence of the concept does not allow one to conclude that a real being exists to match that concept. One cannot establish the objective existence of anything by examining its subjective definition as a concept.
That's about all I have to say on the argument, save one final point which I am completely confident will be met with criticism. Even if the argument were valid and successfully proved the existence of a god, it would at the same time disprove the existence of the Christian god. This is because the Christian god is not at all close to the greatest being one can conceive of. The greatest being I can conceive of would not carry out, command, and endorse genocide, infanticide, and slavery. I'm not too keen on beginning biblical criticism this early in the discussion, so hopefully the contents of the bible is a topic we can agree to save for a later date. But, it's up to you, since I opened my big mouth about it!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Problems of Perfection, part 3
Ok, one final point (for now) about perfection. Luckily, this is a quick point:
If we assume that a god is perfect, it also means that he cannot change. This seems obvious enough: what could a perfect being change into? If perfection is the state at which no flaws exist, and no "non-flaws" can be added, then anything perfect can only ever change into something less than what it already is. In simple terms, a perfect being can only change into something imperfect. This would invalidate such a being's initial perfection, so from that contradiction we can understand that a perfect being can never change.
What implications does this have for some of the popular definitions of god? If one equates god with nature, as pantheists do, it has to be concluded that such a god is imperfect. We know that nature changes constantly. The state of the universe when you began to read this sentence is somehow different by the time you reach the period. Such changes and transformations could not happen with an unchanging being.
All definitions of god and theologies must take this principle of perfection vs. change into account.
This also has implications for the god which is defined as omnipotent. Definitions of omnipotence vary. One definition states that the deity can do anything that is in accord with its nature. This definition doesn't conflict with the idea of perfection. A stronger definition does, however. If omnipotence is defined as being able to do absolutely anything, this establishes a paradox in the being also defined as perfect.
I've given examples of some things a perfect being cannot do: a perfect being cannot make a bad choice; a perfect being cannot change, etc. Each one of these "cannots" makes a strong definition of omnipotence impossible. A being can be either perfect, or able to do anything, but not both at the same time.
If we assume that a god is perfect, it also means that he cannot change. This seems obvious enough: what could a perfect being change into? If perfection is the state at which no flaws exist, and no "non-flaws" can be added, then anything perfect can only ever change into something less than what it already is. In simple terms, a perfect being can only change into something imperfect. This would invalidate such a being's initial perfection, so from that contradiction we can understand that a perfect being can never change.
What implications does this have for some of the popular definitions of god? If one equates god with nature, as pantheists do, it has to be concluded that such a god is imperfect. We know that nature changes constantly. The state of the universe when you began to read this sentence is somehow different by the time you reach the period. Such changes and transformations could not happen with an unchanging being.
All definitions of god and theologies must take this principle of perfection vs. change into account.
This also has implications for the god which is defined as omnipotent. Definitions of omnipotence vary. One definition states that the deity can do anything that is in accord with its nature. This definition doesn't conflict with the idea of perfection. A stronger definition does, however. If omnipotence is defined as being able to do absolutely anything, this establishes a paradox in the being also defined as perfect.
I've given examples of some things a perfect being cannot do: a perfect being cannot make a bad choice; a perfect being cannot change, etc. Each one of these "cannots" makes a strong definition of omnipotence impossible. A being can be either perfect, or able to do anything, but not both at the same time.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Problems of Perfection, part 2
Sorry for the delay, all. I finally have a working laptop again.
Picking up where I left off, we had established that a perfect being cannot freely make any choice of importance. In light of this, I'd like to reexamine the claim of a perfect god being benevolent.
If we accept the dictionary ideal of benevolence as "doing good for others", then there is no logical reason why a perfect being cannot be also benevolent. A perfect being certainly can do good things, so that isn't what I find problematic. My contention is that benevolence of this sort, however, isn't deserving of admiration.
To clarify and explain, I will paraphrase a parable from the New Testament. Everyone should be familiar with the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32. To breifly summarize, a man has two sons. The younger demands his inheritance, leaves his father, and wastes his money. The older stays obedient to his father. The younger returns, begging for mercy, and is welcomed by his father with great celebration. This irritates the older, hard-working son, since his faithfulness was never praised in such a manner. The father explains that they must celebrate, for his brother was lost and has been found, was dead and is now alive again.
The reason this parable is important is because it highlights an important point: a moral action is more deserving of praise if the action was highly unlikely to be performed. The unjust son was much more unlikely to obey his father, so when he finally returned, his obedience was commended more highly than the just son's. A person who donates $100 annually to a charity receives less commendation than a homeless man who donates $100. Ebeneezer Scrooge's new-found Christmas spirit was more uplifting than the unwavering spirit of his nephew.
Behind each of these stories of conversion (turning around), the mechanism which allows the change is choice. The prodigal son was rewarded because he chose to return. What does this mean, then, for a being which cannot make such a choice? If all choices of consequence have been predetermined by god's perfection, then god can have no conversion. He cannot make the choice to act benevolently, it's already been made! In this sense, a perfect and benevolent god is like the older son, who never betrayed his father, but never receives real praise. Likewise, if god is already bound to only ever act benevolently, why should he be praised?
Praise is due when a person could make a bad choice, yet does not; or could remain apathetic, but chooses to do good for others. A being which has no choices to make, therefore, isn't due any praise. If a god existed, I would desire a god that was imperfect; a god who could mess up, but overcomes this weakness out of love. A perfect god has no weakness to overcome, no choices to make, and therefore no love needed. The fact that such a god is prone to act benevolently wouldn't be the product of love or compassion; but simply part of it's programming, like a machine.
I don't want a robot god, even if it is benevolent.
Picking up where I left off, we had established that a perfect being cannot freely make any choice of importance. In light of this, I'd like to reexamine the claim of a perfect god being benevolent.
If we accept the dictionary ideal of benevolence as "doing good for others", then there is no logical reason why a perfect being cannot be also benevolent. A perfect being certainly can do good things, so that isn't what I find problematic. My contention is that benevolence of this sort, however, isn't deserving of admiration.
To clarify and explain, I will paraphrase a parable from the New Testament. Everyone should be familiar with the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32. To breifly summarize, a man has two sons. The younger demands his inheritance, leaves his father, and wastes his money. The older stays obedient to his father. The younger returns, begging for mercy, and is welcomed by his father with great celebration. This irritates the older, hard-working son, since his faithfulness was never praised in such a manner. The father explains that they must celebrate, for his brother was lost and has been found, was dead and is now alive again.
The reason this parable is important is because it highlights an important point: a moral action is more deserving of praise if the action was highly unlikely to be performed. The unjust son was much more unlikely to obey his father, so when he finally returned, his obedience was commended more highly than the just son's. A person who donates $100 annually to a charity receives less commendation than a homeless man who donates $100. Ebeneezer Scrooge's new-found Christmas spirit was more uplifting than the unwavering spirit of his nephew.
Behind each of these stories of conversion (turning around), the mechanism which allows the change is choice. The prodigal son was rewarded because he chose to return. What does this mean, then, for a being which cannot make such a choice? If all choices of consequence have been predetermined by god's perfection, then god can have no conversion. He cannot make the choice to act benevolently, it's already been made! In this sense, a perfect and benevolent god is like the older son, who never betrayed his father, but never receives real praise. Likewise, if god is already bound to only ever act benevolently, why should he be praised?
Praise is due when a person could make a bad choice, yet does not; or could remain apathetic, but chooses to do good for others. A being which has no choices to make, therefore, isn't due any praise. If a god existed, I would desire a god that was imperfect; a god who could mess up, but overcomes this weakness out of love. A perfect god has no weakness to overcome, no choices to make, and therefore no love needed. The fact that such a god is prone to act benevolently wouldn't be the product of love or compassion; but simply part of it's programming, like a machine.
I don't want a robot god, even if it is benevolent.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Problems of Perfection, part 1
Ah, to be perfect. Isn't that the state which humans strive towards?
Well, perfection is not something I'd wish to obtain, and here's why:
Recently I debated a theist in a chatroom who defined his god with the following qualities:
"All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, merciful, and perfect", etc.
I usually condense these qualties into what I call "the omni's" (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent)
At some point I asked to know how this theist made the jump from a deistic creator to a theistic god. His reply was along the lines of "an impersonal god cannot make a choice. God chose to create the universe out of his free will, and therefore he must be personal."
Let's ignore the unjustified assertion that impersonal beings can't make a choice. I want to focus on two words only: God chose.
Can god choose, based on the qualities provided by this theist? And does he have free will? I intend to show that this god cannot make any choice of importance, and possesses little to no free will at all.
The problem lies in the quality of perfection. In every choice that we can make, there is a option which will lead to a better consequence than all the others. For simplicity's sake, let's work in the context of a choice that has two options: a beneficial option, and a less beneficial or bad option. Being all-knowing, this god would have the capability to see which option of any choice will lead to the best results.
Now, since he is a perfect being, this god cannot ever choose the option which is not the best option. If he were to choose this bad option, it would negate his perfection by engaging in an activity which could be improved upon. (If there is room for improvement, you're not perfect.) So in a choice with one good option and one bad option, the perfect being is incapable of choosing the bad option.
This theist defended his definition by claiming: "God could choose the bad option, but he simply doesn't."
Well, no he can't! If we hold the definition of perfection strictly, it prevents this god from ever choosing the poor option. A perfect being cannot, by definition, act in an imperfect manner. So he is bound by his own perfection to only ever choose the best option. This contradicts the idea of free will. Something has to go: either this god is imperfect, or he does not possess free will. One cannot have both.
"Ok, but what about choices in which the options arrive at equal consequences? God can still make those choices."
First of all, we must realize that an all-knowing being would be able to discern even the slightest superiority among options, and thus this list of equal options must be extremely small. But can you honestly think of a choice that you have made that didn't possess one option that was slightly better than all others??
Even if we grant the premise that absolutely equal options exist, this is all that god is capable of choosing? The extent of his "free will" is only the ability to make choices that have no consequence. If all options are equal, then we don't need a god to make choices. All we need is a coin.
Is this god nothing more than a heads/tails in the sky??
And thus, I don't want to be perfect. I rather enjoy making the occasional poor choice. After all, it is the ability to make a bad choice which makes picking the better option worthwhile and commendable. This will be my topic in the second part of this series.
Well, perfection is not something I'd wish to obtain, and here's why:
Recently I debated a theist in a chatroom who defined his god with the following qualities:
"All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, merciful, and perfect", etc.
I usually condense these qualties into what I call "the omni's" (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent)
At some point I asked to know how this theist made the jump from a deistic creator to a theistic god. His reply was along the lines of "an impersonal god cannot make a choice. God chose to create the universe out of his free will, and therefore he must be personal."
Let's ignore the unjustified assertion that impersonal beings can't make a choice. I want to focus on two words only: God chose.
Can god choose, based on the qualities provided by this theist? And does he have free will? I intend to show that this god cannot make any choice of importance, and possesses little to no free will at all.
The problem lies in the quality of perfection. In every choice that we can make, there is a option which will lead to a better consequence than all the others. For simplicity's sake, let's work in the context of a choice that has two options: a beneficial option, and a less beneficial or bad option. Being all-knowing, this god would have the capability to see which option of any choice will lead to the best results.
Now, since he is a perfect being, this god cannot ever choose the option which is not the best option. If he were to choose this bad option, it would negate his perfection by engaging in an activity which could be improved upon. (If there is room for improvement, you're not perfect.) So in a choice with one good option and one bad option, the perfect being is incapable of choosing the bad option.
This theist defended his definition by claiming: "God could choose the bad option, but he simply doesn't."
Well, no he can't! If we hold the definition of perfection strictly, it prevents this god from ever choosing the poor option. A perfect being cannot, by definition, act in an imperfect manner. So he is bound by his own perfection to only ever choose the best option. This contradicts the idea of free will. Something has to go: either this god is imperfect, or he does not possess free will. One cannot have both.
"Ok, but what about choices in which the options arrive at equal consequences? God can still make those choices."
First of all, we must realize that an all-knowing being would be able to discern even the slightest superiority among options, and thus this list of equal options must be extremely small. But can you honestly think of a choice that you have made that didn't possess one option that was slightly better than all others??
Even if we grant the premise that absolutely equal options exist, this is all that god is capable of choosing? The extent of his "free will" is only the ability to make choices that have no consequence. If all options are equal, then we don't need a god to make choices. All we need is a coin.
Is this god nothing more than a heads/tails in the sky??
And thus, I don't want to be perfect. I rather enjoy making the occasional poor choice. After all, it is the ability to make a bad choice which makes picking the better option worthwhile and commendable. This will be my topic in the second part of this series.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Reply to a Christian
Well, I've been terribly busy with research recently, but I had a comment on my "500 Eyewitnesses?" that I could not pass up criticizing. If you haven't already read that post, I suggest you do, although its not necessary for the purposes of analyzing this Christian's comment.
He or she said:
I am truly amazed with the knowledge atheist have acquired through reading the word of God. Employing the word of God for the atheist "belief" of there being no God is ridiculous, it discredits their own view of there being no God, because they are using the word of God. -All- atheist need to do some serious introspection.
Let's start at the first sentence:
-Don't be so amazed. Typically, atheists are more familiar with the bible than most Christians.
-The phrase "word of God" is unjustified and extremely improbable. At best, the bible is a book written by men about the god in which they believe.
Second (run-on) sentence:
-I'm glad you put belief in quotes, since atheism is not a belief in and of itself. But what you've tacked on to it renders the quotes unnecessary. Atheism is not the positive claim that no god exists; far from it. All that is required for the label of atheist to be correct is an admission that there is not sufficient evidence to make the belief in a deity justified. That's all. Being an atheist doesn't also require that you assert no god exists, although some do.
-By discrediting the use of the phrase "word of god" and correcting your error in defining atheism, I've rendered the rest of this sentence almost meaningless. But I'll rephrase it to address "why do atheists use the bible in arguments at all?" Well, mainly to point out three things: 1) How a specific claim is actually unjustified, as was the case with the 500 eyewitnesses. 2) To show how your "good book" contains and advocates absolutely immoral actions, committed and commanded both by Yahweh and his followers. 3) To point out discrepancies between biblical accounts or highlight contradictions between what the bible says and what is known about the natural world.
So the use of the bible is in no way an admission that your god exists nor is it a contradiction to our arguments.
Last sentence:
-The very fact that someone uses the atheist label indicates that, probably, they are very familiar with introspection and critical thought. Most atheists were raised in religious households, and did not arrive at atheism without several years of introspection, gradual questioning, and intense research. Yet all it takes to be a Christian, or any theist, is to give into belief. There is no research, questioning, or critical thought required.
-So I return the rebuke back to you, my commenter.
He or she said:
I am truly amazed with the knowledge atheist have acquired through reading the word of God. Employing the word of God for the atheist "belief" of there being no God is ridiculous, it discredits their own view of there being no God, because they are using the word of God. -All- atheist need to do some serious introspection.
Let's start at the first sentence:
-Don't be so amazed. Typically, atheists are more familiar with the bible than most Christians.
-The phrase "word of God" is unjustified and extremely improbable. At best, the bible is a book written by men about the god in which they believe.
Second (run-on) sentence:
-I'm glad you put belief in quotes, since atheism is not a belief in and of itself. But what you've tacked on to it renders the quotes unnecessary. Atheism is not the positive claim that no god exists; far from it. All that is required for the label of atheist to be correct is an admission that there is not sufficient evidence to make the belief in a deity justified. That's all. Being an atheist doesn't also require that you assert no god exists, although some do.
-By discrediting the use of the phrase "word of god" and correcting your error in defining atheism, I've rendered the rest of this sentence almost meaningless. But I'll rephrase it to address "why do atheists use the bible in arguments at all?" Well, mainly to point out three things: 1) How a specific claim is actually unjustified, as was the case with the 500 eyewitnesses. 2) To show how your "good book" contains and advocates absolutely immoral actions, committed and commanded both by Yahweh and his followers. 3) To point out discrepancies between biblical accounts or highlight contradictions between what the bible says and what is known about the natural world.
So the use of the bible is in no way an admission that your god exists nor is it a contradiction to our arguments.
Last sentence:
-The very fact that someone uses the atheist label indicates that, probably, they are very familiar with introspection and critical thought. Most atheists were raised in religious households, and did not arrive at atheism without several years of introspection, gradual questioning, and intense research. Yet all it takes to be a Christian, or any theist, is to give into belief. There is no research, questioning, or critical thought required.
-So I return the rebuke back to you, my commenter.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Belief is easy!"
No, it's not.
Not in the way my mind works, anyway.
Today I had a very long debate with a Christian. He didn't present anything unique, but when all out of "evidence" for god, he revealed an attitude which I have come to detest.
He said:
"Why not just believe? Isn't it easier just to have faith than to try to find evidence for everything?"
I had hoped he had misspoken, but these sorts of statements were repeated by him several more times. I tried to explain to him what I will try to explain here, but I'm not sure it truly sunk in for him.
I will never, and probably cannot, abandon my search for truth by evidence in favor of faith. I can only think of this as selling out. In order to give into faith, I'd have to sell out all my wisdom, knowledge of the natural world, and knowledge of the proper paths to truth. I would have to become everything that I am not...and this is supposed to be easy?
Even if it were easy for me to buy into faith, what a hideous proposition! It's almost comical.
Who needs that fancy-schmancy ev-a-dance when you can just have faith?
Well that's just dandy. But why, I wonder, should I limit my faith to just one god? If I'm going to disregard evidence in favor of faith, I'd much rather have faith that the world was created by the thrashing riffs of gods of rock, and that they have defined morality as headbanging and moshing and being an all around rock-star. Now that would be cool. And why should you disagree? Afterall, it's just faith, and it's easy!
But my favorite quote from this theist by far was:
"Why waste time in search of truth and evidence? You can just have faith and then spend more time on more important things like your relationship with your wife, and with your dogs"
Definitely. Shouldn't we all give up the quest for knowledge by evidence, and buy into whatever faith we concoct, so that we can have a bit more personal time with Fido?
What can be said? Once again I find evidence for my conclusion that many theists hate knowledge. They are enchanted by faith, while we Rationalists are keen to avoid it whenever possible. We can see the idiocy of such faith-heads in statements such as these. I think some people are so cognitively lazy that they prefer the easy answers.
Just don't make me think, and I'll believe whatever.
Before the conversation ended, I told him the definition of a theist. (He didn't know he was one.)
Trying to be clever, he replied:
"Ok. I'll believe you. It's easier that way :)"
I yelled at him.
Not in the way my mind works, anyway.
Today I had a very long debate with a Christian. He didn't present anything unique, but when all out of "evidence" for god, he revealed an attitude which I have come to detest.
He said:
"Why not just believe? Isn't it easier just to have faith than to try to find evidence for everything?"
I had hoped he had misspoken, but these sorts of statements were repeated by him several more times. I tried to explain to him what I will try to explain here, but I'm not sure it truly sunk in for him.
I will never, and probably cannot, abandon my search for truth by evidence in favor of faith. I can only think of this as selling out. In order to give into faith, I'd have to sell out all my wisdom, knowledge of the natural world, and knowledge of the proper paths to truth. I would have to become everything that I am not...and this is supposed to be easy?
Even if it were easy for me to buy into faith, what a hideous proposition! It's almost comical.
Who needs that fancy-schmancy ev-a-dance when you can just have faith?
Well that's just dandy. But why, I wonder, should I limit my faith to just one god? If I'm going to disregard evidence in favor of faith, I'd much rather have faith that the world was created by the thrashing riffs of gods of rock, and that they have defined morality as headbanging and moshing and being an all around rock-star. Now that would be cool. And why should you disagree? Afterall, it's just faith, and it's easy!
But my favorite quote from this theist by far was:
"Why waste time in search of truth and evidence? You can just have faith and then spend more time on more important things like your relationship with your wife, and with your dogs"
Definitely. Shouldn't we all give up the quest for knowledge by evidence, and buy into whatever faith we concoct, so that we can have a bit more personal time with Fido?
What can be said? Once again I find evidence for my conclusion that many theists hate knowledge. They are enchanted by faith, while we Rationalists are keen to avoid it whenever possible. We can see the idiocy of such faith-heads in statements such as these. I think some people are so cognitively lazy that they prefer the easy answers.
Just don't make me think, and I'll believe whatever.
Before the conversation ended, I told him the definition of a theist. (He didn't know he was one.)
Trying to be clever, he replied:
"Ok. I'll believe you. It's easier that way :)"
I yelled at him.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Skinner and god
Today I had a discussion with a Christian which was surprisingly civil and respectful. It's always a pleasure to know your words do not fall on closed ears. The debate did, however, spark a novel idea for me. Rather than retell the debate itself, I'll expand upon my realization.
As a psychologist, I'm well-versed in the works and theories of B.F. Skinner, and understand conditioning and learning. Skinner and the behaviorists are opposed to the attribution of "essences, spirits, souls, and internal ambiguous intentions"to objects. It was not long ago that essences and desires were attributed to both animate and inanimate objects, silly as that may seem. Skinner expanded the discoveries of Pavlov and others from "lower" animals to the human animal. The same reinforcement and punishment schedules that shape a dog's behavior shape a human's behavior.
So what's the point I need to make? Well, we can no longer say that someone is trustworthy, or loyal, or hardworking, or loving, honest, friendly, or kind. That phrasing makes it seem that those qualities are some sort of internal, ambiguous force residing in a person. The proper phrasing, in light of behaviorism, is to acknowledge that reinforcement and punishment contingencies have been such arranged to produce behavior which can be labeled "loving" by another human brain. We may incorrectly label the person as being "loving"; we mean, in fact, that their behavior is "loving". Our qualities are the result of behavior being labeled, not unseen forces within us. How else do you know if a "person" is honest? How else do you know if a "person" is friendly? We draw the best conclusions by observations of behavior. (Science!)
So right off the bat we can conclude that labels attached to a god do not describe the god himself or herself, but describe his or her purported behavior. Keep this in mind when theists describe god.
Now, the theist in question was discussing the qualities of god's character. Christians typically claim god is "holy, kind, just, loving, honest, etc.". Understanding that qualities are simply labeled behaviors, what are the behaviors that have been observed in order to come to these labels? Well, it's a complicated question, isn't it? I'm a pretty observant fellow, but I've never witnessed the behavior of an undeniable god. Where are these labels coming from?
The theist said the behaviors are found in the bible. Well, that's not exactly phrased right. The reports of the behaviors are found in the bible. In other words, the behavior isn't directly observed itself, but through the bible one can take the author's word for it. Of course, if there is evidence of the behavior outside of the author's account, it lends credibility for the application of a label. Unfortunately, there is not any physical evidence that supports the biblical intervention of a god at any point in history, including the Jesus story. So all that's left is the author's word for it, and that leads to a high possibility of an incorrect labeling, since no behavior has been observed. Sure we can label the character of the biblical god like we can label a novel figure, but this doesn't equate with a god in reality. Besides, if the author's word for it is all that's needed, you'd require blinders to overlook the evil god of the Old Testament, and still arrive at labels like "loving and peaceful."
This theist also said that the beauty of the Earth is evidence that god is creative and loving. Well, let's just overlook the plethora of ways in which the Earth tries to kill us everyday, and focus on the beauty itself. Is Earth beautiful? It goes back to behaviorism: objects do not have intrinsic essences and qualities, outside of what labels we attach. Beauty is completely subjective. The Earth is only beautiful if we say it is. I've known people who find the Earth beautiful and others who find it ugly. Sometimes, one person can have both opinions in different points of one lifetime. Can a subjective opinion really serve as sufficient evidence to attach a label to an unobserved behavior? Of course not. Besides, there is no evidence of the Earth being "created" in a way any differently than the natural formations of the other billion billion planets.
Of course, there is the behavior of a god which has only anecdotal evidence. "God made my sister better", "God saved me", "God sent Hurricane Katrina because of gay people", etc. I won't spend much time on these anecdotes, because every atheist, rationalist, and psychologist knows that anecdotal evidence is meaningless and often false unless supported by objective evidence. So what if you claim to have a personal account of god's behavior; can you demonstrate objectively by evidence that this was a god's doing, and could not be explained by any other means?? Of course they can't.
So what are these labels based upon, exactly? Do they actually describe the deity's behavior, or do they describe what people expect the deity's behavior to be like? I think the lack of any physical evidence of such a deity's behavior forces the second option to be true. A theist cannot say that god behaves "lovingly, kindly, or holy". The theist can only say that they expect, believe, or hope that god's actions are loving, kind, and holy.
This is where my thought ends at the current moment, but I hope that this line of thinking will come in handy when evaluating claims of god's character in future discourse. I think Skinner has a lot to offer to human knowledge, both in and outside of Psychology, and even in the debate about god.
As a psychologist, I'm well-versed in the works and theories of B.F. Skinner, and understand conditioning and learning. Skinner and the behaviorists are opposed to the attribution of "essences, spirits, souls, and internal ambiguous intentions"to objects. It was not long ago that essences and desires were attributed to both animate and inanimate objects, silly as that may seem. Skinner expanded the discoveries of Pavlov and others from "lower" animals to the human animal. The same reinforcement and punishment schedules that shape a dog's behavior shape a human's behavior.
So what's the point I need to make? Well, we can no longer say that someone is trustworthy, or loyal, or hardworking, or loving, honest, friendly, or kind. That phrasing makes it seem that those qualities are some sort of internal, ambiguous force residing in a person. The proper phrasing, in light of behaviorism, is to acknowledge that reinforcement and punishment contingencies have been such arranged to produce behavior which can be labeled "loving" by another human brain. We may incorrectly label the person as being "loving"; we mean, in fact, that their behavior is "loving". Our qualities are the result of behavior being labeled, not unseen forces within us. How else do you know if a "person" is honest? How else do you know if a "person" is friendly? We draw the best conclusions by observations of behavior. (Science!)
So right off the bat we can conclude that labels attached to a god do not describe the god himself or herself, but describe his or her purported behavior. Keep this in mind when theists describe god.
Now, the theist in question was discussing the qualities of god's character. Christians typically claim god is "holy, kind, just, loving, honest, etc.". Understanding that qualities are simply labeled behaviors, what are the behaviors that have been observed in order to come to these labels? Well, it's a complicated question, isn't it? I'm a pretty observant fellow, but I've never witnessed the behavior of an undeniable god. Where are these labels coming from?
The theist said the behaviors are found in the bible. Well, that's not exactly phrased right. The reports of the behaviors are found in the bible. In other words, the behavior isn't directly observed itself, but through the bible one can take the author's word for it. Of course, if there is evidence of the behavior outside of the author's account, it lends credibility for the application of a label. Unfortunately, there is not any physical evidence that supports the biblical intervention of a god at any point in history, including the Jesus story. So all that's left is the author's word for it, and that leads to a high possibility of an incorrect labeling, since no behavior has been observed. Sure we can label the character of the biblical god like we can label a novel figure, but this doesn't equate with a god in reality. Besides, if the author's word for it is all that's needed, you'd require blinders to overlook the evil god of the Old Testament, and still arrive at labels like "loving and peaceful."
This theist also said that the beauty of the Earth is evidence that god is creative and loving. Well, let's just overlook the plethora of ways in which the Earth tries to kill us everyday, and focus on the beauty itself. Is Earth beautiful? It goes back to behaviorism: objects do not have intrinsic essences and qualities, outside of what labels we attach. Beauty is completely subjective. The Earth is only beautiful if we say it is. I've known people who find the Earth beautiful and others who find it ugly. Sometimes, one person can have both opinions in different points of one lifetime. Can a subjective opinion really serve as sufficient evidence to attach a label to an unobserved behavior? Of course not. Besides, there is no evidence of the Earth being "created" in a way any differently than the natural formations of the other billion billion planets.
Of course, there is the behavior of a god which has only anecdotal evidence. "God made my sister better", "God saved me", "God sent Hurricane Katrina because of gay people", etc. I won't spend much time on these anecdotes, because every atheist, rationalist, and psychologist knows that anecdotal evidence is meaningless and often false unless supported by objective evidence. So what if you claim to have a personal account of god's behavior; can you demonstrate objectively by evidence that this was a god's doing, and could not be explained by any other means?? Of course they can't.
So what are these labels based upon, exactly? Do they actually describe the deity's behavior, or do they describe what people expect the deity's behavior to be like? I think the lack of any physical evidence of such a deity's behavior forces the second option to be true. A theist cannot say that god behaves "lovingly, kindly, or holy". The theist can only say that they expect, believe, or hope that god's actions are loving, kind, and holy.
This is where my thought ends at the current moment, but I hope that this line of thinking will come in handy when evaluating claims of god's character in future discourse. I think Skinner has a lot to offer to human knowledge, both in and outside of Psychology, and even in the debate about god.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Do not forget the evil of theism
Sometimes I forget the power theism holds over certain individuals. I focus on the claims so closely I forget to see the monster making them. With theism, there is always the possibility for absolute evil (in addition to the normal immorality of unjustified belief). This recent debate reminded me of that ugly fact, and repulsed me immensely.
The debate, which took place on youtube via private messages, will be copied and pasted below.
Christian:
I hope you get right with God. It's funny how evil you are to me, yet how much I sincerely want your soul to be saved!
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling children they are guilty, filthy creatures and deserve eternal torture.
Evil, to me, is the mutilation of a child's genitals.
Evil, to me, is the deprivation of a child's education, in favor of bronze-age mythology.
Evil, to me, is god-commanded genocide.
Evil, to me, is religion-fueled bombings.
Evil, to me, is unquestionable dogma.
Evil, to me, is the pushing of legislation to ban homosexuality based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is the opposition of science that can save lives because of mythology.
Evil, to me, is the oppression of women based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is willful ignorance.
Evil, to me, is lying to a child.
Evil, to me, is lying to anyone in order to obtain money or gifts.
Evil, to me, is using fear to gain control of a person and a person's assets.
Evil, to me, is all these things which religion causes.
Therefore, evil, to me...is you.
Goodness, ergo, is opposing evil.
Christian:
Evil to you... evil to you... so what if that's not evil to someone else? What if to a cannibal eating a child for lunch (much less lying to him) is permissible?
Moral relativism is from your father the devil. Only God is good enough to decide what is right and what is wrong
Me:
There's another:
Evil, to me, is telling a person their father is the devil.
I'm only looking at the world, and the path of burnt corpses, bombed buildings, indoctrinated children, murdered doctors, and destroyed lives that religion leaves behind it. If you can't see the evil in that, I pity you.
Besides, I'm more moral than the god of the bible, and I bet you are too.
I would never tell someone: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3
I would never condone the killing of infants, but apparently its just dandy for your "god".
Christian:
No, evil is not telling a person their father is the devil (spiritually) when he is.
That is evil. I know with 100% certainty that you are a true child of Satan, your father. You show disdain and even hatred for God. Until you turn from your old life and to God, you will be a child of the devil.
It would be INFINITELY more evil not to tell you the truth about this when in fact, I hold the key in this debate. But I cannot judge you as I was probably worse than you and very egotistical like you before I got saved.
God did what was good and perfect. He sees the whole picture. What satan uses for evil, God can turn into good. One of God's very names is the Lord of Hosts (armies). Our God is a mighty warrior. By Him, everyone knew the American Revolution was won.
Me: (now disgusted by this point)
Yet another:
Evil, to me, is telling someone that what is only mere faith is truth.
Evil, to me, is justify the killing of infants and women.
Evil, to me, is allowing your "god" to command men to rape virgins and take a knife to suckling babies; while still claiming to be "moral" when opposing abortion.
Evil, to me, is hypocrisy similar to the above.
Evil, to me, is falsely claiming the your god had anything to do with American history.
You are, perhaps, the most morally-deprived person I've talked to. It's too bad that there is no hell for you to go to.
Christian:
Evil, is to you what it might not be to another.
Moral relativism is evil and from Satan, from whom you are taking lessons.
God is why there is American history; otherwise it would be European history still. God is why there is history. God is why we are even alive.
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling a person who strives for truth, donates to the poor, comforts the sick, protects the innocent, helps the downtrodden through crisis, and supports equality that their actions are from "Satan".
Do you really think the above actions are evil?
Funny..in every war that has ever been fought, god was claimed to be on both sides.
Christian:
In themselves, they are not evil. It doesn't stop the truth from being the truth, however. In fact, Satan parades as an angel of light. He is the father of lies.
Maybe mankind claimed God to be on both sides. But the truth is that God of Israel (the true God) was only on one side. So that doesn't matter.
Me:
Well tell you what: I'll keep helping the poor, destitute, sick, lonely, stressed, afraid, innocent, and vulnerable; and you keep making excuses of why it is ok for god to command the death of infants and the rape of women.
If god commanded you to kill a woman and her infant child, as he commanded Saul, would you do it?
Christian:
God also smote the firstborn of Egypt. God does what is right and perfect at all times. Who are we to question our Creator. It is fortunate any of us are breathing.
Oh, but let's not look at the big picture- that would be too hard.
Me:
You did not answer my question.
If god told you to take the life of a woman, and of her newborn child, as he told Saul, would you do it?
Yes or no?
(Prepare yourselves)
Christian:
If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God.
Me: (enraged and repulsed)
Then you admit to being a mindless slave, willing to murder an infant. You are too weak to think for yourself and your mindlessness would lead you to commit horrible crimes that violate everything good about humanity. Your willingness to take the life of a newborn repulses me; makes me want to vomit. I'm embarrassed to share this planet with you, and much more embarrassed to be conversing with you. Your fanatic devotion is no better than that of Osama Bin Laden and the suicide bombers. Your mind is diseased, sick, and twisted. Your faith does not deserve tolerance; it deserves jail time and therapy. You claim I am evil; yet you are the one ready to jab the knife into the stomach of a woman.
For this, I will not corrupt my morals any further by talking to you. Just as you think you cast aside "Satan", I shall cast you aside. If there lay any evil between the two of us, it lay with the one ready to murder. I cannot overlook that, and cannot consort with murderers.
...later..
Now that I think about it...
You said:
"If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God."
Even if everything you believed was actually true; I would STILL never murder a fellow man, especially a baby. But look at your reason! You would kill a child in order to avoid punishment for yourself! Could you possibly be more evil?! How selfish is that?!
You'd kill a child, to save your own skin...
I'd spend eternity in hell before I dare lay a malevolent hand on a child; and if god asked me to, I'd tell him to fuck off.
You evil, sick, selfish, child-killing, slave...how dare you claim to know morality.
Perhaps you think my words were harsh, and perhaps you do not. Frankly, I do not think there are words harsh enough for those willing to murder an infant an a woman just to get a reward. This disgusting pervert does not deserve the respect he demands; he deserves to be locked away.
Never forget, my fellow atheists, that theism is never innocent. Even when we let it slip from our sight, there is always the potential monster behind the beliefs. The only way to rid society of pathological nitwits such as this man is to recognize that the faith of any theist is not benign. It does not make society better, and it does not even "break even". It corrupts society, turns otherwise smart people into slaves, and allows for abominations against human decency.
If anyone desires to give this particular theist a piece of their mind, I will give you his youtube username. Just email me at crgordon@gmail.com.
The debate, which took place on youtube via private messages, will be copied and pasted below.
Christian:
I hope you get right with God. It's funny how evil you are to me, yet how much I sincerely want your soul to be saved!
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling children they are guilty, filthy creatures and deserve eternal torture.
Evil, to me, is the mutilation of a child's genitals.
Evil, to me, is the deprivation of a child's education, in favor of bronze-age mythology.
Evil, to me, is god-commanded genocide.
Evil, to me, is religion-fueled bombings.
Evil, to me, is unquestionable dogma.
Evil, to me, is the pushing of legislation to ban homosexuality based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is the opposition of science that can save lives because of mythology.
Evil, to me, is the oppression of women based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is willful ignorance.
Evil, to me, is lying to a child.
Evil, to me, is lying to anyone in order to obtain money or gifts.
Evil, to me, is using fear to gain control of a person and a person's assets.
Evil, to me, is all these things which religion causes.
Therefore, evil, to me...is you.
Goodness, ergo, is opposing evil.
Christian:
Evil to you... evil to you... so what if that's not evil to someone else? What if to a cannibal eating a child for lunch (much less lying to him) is permissible?
Moral relativism is from your father the devil. Only God is good enough to decide what is right and what is wrong
Me:
There's another:
Evil, to me, is telling a person their father is the devil.
I'm only looking at the world, and the path of burnt corpses, bombed buildings, indoctrinated children, murdered doctors, and destroyed lives that religion leaves behind it. If you can't see the evil in that, I pity you.
Besides, I'm more moral than the god of the bible, and I bet you are too.
I would never tell someone: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3
I would never condone the killing of infants, but apparently its just dandy for your "god".
Christian:
No, evil is not telling a person their father is the devil (spiritually) when he is.
That is evil. I know with 100% certainty that you are a true child of Satan, your father. You show disdain and even hatred for God. Until you turn from your old life and to God, you will be a child of the devil.
It would be INFINITELY more evil not to tell you the truth about this when in fact, I hold the key in this debate. But I cannot judge you as I was probably worse than you and very egotistical like you before I got saved.
God did what was good and perfect. He sees the whole picture. What satan uses for evil, God can turn into good. One of God's very names is the Lord of Hosts (armies). Our God is a mighty warrior. By Him, everyone knew the American Revolution was won.
Me: (now disgusted by this point)
Yet another:
Evil, to me, is telling someone that what is only mere faith is truth.
Evil, to me, is justify the killing of infants and women.
Evil, to me, is allowing your "god" to command men to rape virgins and take a knife to suckling babies; while still claiming to be "moral" when opposing abortion.
Evil, to me, is hypocrisy similar to the above.
Evil, to me, is falsely claiming the your god had anything to do with American history.
You are, perhaps, the most morally-deprived person I've talked to. It's too bad that there is no hell for you to go to.
Christian:
Evil, is to you what it might not be to another.
Moral relativism is evil and from Satan, from whom you are taking lessons.
God is why there is American history; otherwise it would be European history still. God is why there is history. God is why we are even alive.
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling a person who strives for truth, donates to the poor, comforts the sick, protects the innocent, helps the downtrodden through crisis, and supports equality that their actions are from "Satan".
Do you really think the above actions are evil?
Funny..in every war that has ever been fought, god was claimed to be on both sides.
Christian:
In themselves, they are not evil. It doesn't stop the truth from being the truth, however. In fact, Satan parades as an angel of light. He is the father of lies.
Maybe mankind claimed God to be on both sides. But the truth is that God of Israel (the true God) was only on one side. So that doesn't matter.
Me:
Well tell you what: I'll keep helping the poor, destitute, sick, lonely, stressed, afraid, innocent, and vulnerable; and you keep making excuses of why it is ok for god to command the death of infants and the rape of women.
If god commanded you to kill a woman and her infant child, as he commanded Saul, would you do it?
Christian:
God also smote the firstborn of Egypt. God does what is right and perfect at all times. Who are we to question our Creator. It is fortunate any of us are breathing.
Oh, but let's not look at the big picture- that would be too hard.
Me:
You did not answer my question.
If god told you to take the life of a woman, and of her newborn child, as he told Saul, would you do it?
Yes or no?
(Prepare yourselves)
Christian:
If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God.
Me: (enraged and repulsed)
Then you admit to being a mindless slave, willing to murder an infant. You are too weak to think for yourself and your mindlessness would lead you to commit horrible crimes that violate everything good about humanity. Your willingness to take the life of a newborn repulses me; makes me want to vomit. I'm embarrassed to share this planet with you, and much more embarrassed to be conversing with you. Your fanatic devotion is no better than that of Osama Bin Laden and the suicide bombers. Your mind is diseased, sick, and twisted. Your faith does not deserve tolerance; it deserves jail time and therapy. You claim I am evil; yet you are the one ready to jab the knife into the stomach of a woman.
For this, I will not corrupt my morals any further by talking to you. Just as you think you cast aside "Satan", I shall cast you aside. If there lay any evil between the two of us, it lay with the one ready to murder. I cannot overlook that, and cannot consort with murderers.
...later..
Now that I think about it...
You said:
"If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God."
Even if everything you believed was actually true; I would STILL never murder a fellow man, especially a baby. But look at your reason! You would kill a child in order to avoid punishment for yourself! Could you possibly be more evil?! How selfish is that?!
You'd kill a child, to save your own skin...
I'd spend eternity in hell before I dare lay a malevolent hand on a child; and if god asked me to, I'd tell him to fuck off.
You evil, sick, selfish, child-killing, slave...how dare you claim to know morality.
Perhaps you think my words were harsh, and perhaps you do not. Frankly, I do not think there are words harsh enough for those willing to murder an infant an a woman just to get a reward. This disgusting pervert does not deserve the respect he demands; he deserves to be locked away.
Never forget, my fellow atheists, that theism is never innocent. Even when we let it slip from our sight, there is always the potential monster behind the beliefs. The only way to rid society of pathological nitwits such as this man is to recognize that the faith of any theist is not benign. It does not make society better, and it does not even "break even". It corrupts society, turns otherwise smart people into slaves, and allows for abominations against human decency.
If anyone desires to give this particular theist a piece of their mind, I will give you his youtube username. Just email me at crgordon@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
