Cold blooded murder. Why not?

Okay, my new atheist friends. Here is your challenge for today.

I'd like you to give me one reason, both self-evident and independent of individual preference, why I shouldn't kill you and take your stuff.

I'm not talking about reasons like "Any idiot knows killing is wrong" (why would they know that if no one told them?) or "I wouldn't like that." (Well, I would like it. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not you. Why should I care about your suffering if I'm the one benefiting and I never have to answer to anyone for my actions?)

No, little ones, I'm talking about something inherent in the nature of the universe. Just what is it about murder and theft that you find so...um...uh...wrong?

Okay, let's say I'm killing you and taking your stuff and along comes a passerby. Why should this person help you? It would only endanger their own survival.

"Well," you say, "they might be next."

Okay, then let's assume that this passerby is infinitely more fit than me, the one doing the killing. They are in no danger, but they still have no reason to help. Why should they help you?

"Because I'll give them anything they want."

Okay, but let's not forget that this person is more fit than either of us. Now the question isn't, "Why should he help you?" but "Why shouldn't the passerby kill both of us and take both of our stuff?"

If you're a monkey being attacked by heinas and along comes a lion and scares them off, why shouldn't the lion eat you instead?

Really, will you guys stop riding on the coattails of religious morality and just admit what you actually believe in already. Animals kill other animals and take their stuff all the time. Why exactly should we be any different?

I think the terrible truth is that the new atheists can't admit that survival of the fittest (i.e. ruthless dictatorship) and nihilism are their only honest options as far as morality goes, because deep down they know they aren't the fittest. It's a superiority complex masking an inferiority complex.
>

Don't believe in Dawkins, Just Yoko and me

I'm sure many of you have seen this delightful little send up of Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", but it loses little of it's power on a second reading. Also be sure to check out the mock radio program.

Here are the first few paragraphs for your enjoyment:

------------------------------------

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

-------------------------------------

Pure fucking Genius.

Haidt haters

There's been a lot of buzz in both the New Atheist and Rational Christian blogs about Jonathan Haidt's recent article on the unreliable nature of human reasoning from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm not a believer in evolution myself, but I'm certainly willing to take it into consideration for the sake of a good argument. And Haidt's is certainly that.

But this isn't about Haidt's article, but the hilarious responses which ensued from the New Atheists at whom the article was partly targeted. I thought I would give just one example, along with my comments..

(Really, is this guy really an adult, or junior member of a third-grade debate club? Why would any reasonably intelligent person pay even half their attention to the arguments of a person who's reasoning skills are so weak, circular and inconsistent?)

Here's Sam Harris:

Haidt concludes his essay with this happy blandishment: "every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing." Surely we can all agree about this. Our bets have been properly hedged (the ideology must be "longstanding" and need only have "some" wisdom). Even a "new atheist" must get off his high horse and drink from such pristine waters. Well, okay…

Anyone feeling nostalgic for the "wisdom" of the Aztecs? Rest assured, there's nothing like the superstitious murder of innocent men, women, and children to "suppress selfishness" and convey a shared sense of purpose. Of course, the Aztecs weren't the only culture to have discovered "human flourishing" at its most sanguinary and psychotic...

...What would Haidt have us think about these venerable traditions of pious ignorance and senseless butchery? Is there some wisdom in these cults of human sacrifice that we should now honor?

----------------

Okay, first I should explain a little more about the article, which will help you understand why this bit of nonsense tickled my funny-bone so.

Haidt says, in short, that the supposedly rational atheist's are committing the exact same error as the people they attack: starting from an emotional predisposition towards one world-view or other and reasoning backwards to justify the original intuition about the way the world works. He cites instances of this type of flawed reasoning in the writings of Harris, Dawkins and Dennett.

Which is why it's so funny when Harris proceeds to exhibit the exact same flawed techniques of argument in his rebuttal of Haidt's article.

Here Harris is simply asserting that the human sacrificial rites of ancient cultures are inherently abominable, by which I mean he makes the assumption that everyone does or should find human sacrifice distasteful, while failing to give any reason why.

Now, I have a very simple reason for not liking human sacrifice. My God said it's wrong. That's certainly not a logical argument, but then, I'm not claiming it to be.

Harris, on the other hand, is jumping to the conclusion that sacrifice is inherently wrong (and everyone else should think just like him on the matter) simply because he finds it distasteful, not taking into account that this is simply the result of him growing up in a (Christian) culture which frowns upon human sacrifice. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of a God who frowns on human sacrifice coming to Earth in human form to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity.)

Does it ever occur to him that the people performing such sacrifices don't find them to be inherently wrong? If there is no higher omniscient intelligence capable of judging between the two views, what precisely makes Harris's views on human sacrifice any more valid than those of the Aztecs?

In reality, what Harris is doing is setting himself up in the place of God. The Aztecs are wrong, he is right, and for no other reason than that he is the one who had the thought. How pathologically egotistical is it to assume that the unfeeling universe cares about whatever Sam Harris happens to find distasteful on any given day?

I suppose if Sam were to change his view on human sacrifice the universe would turn itself inside-out.

Any two year old child could run rings around Harris in debate by employing one simple word: Why?

-------------------------

RK: Mr. Harris, why, if there is no outside force to dictate our morality, is it inherently wrong to kill innocent people?

SH: Well, um, because it's not beneficial to survival in our culture.

RK: Well, aside from the question of who's responsible for our particular culture's aversion to could-blooded murder (hmm, what group would that be?) let's assume we live in a culture where's it's not only acceptable, but particularly beneficial to survival. There are limited examples of this in history, not to mention numerous examples of this in the animal kingdom. You make the claim we are nothing more than particularly advanced animals. Why, in this context, is it wrong to murder?

SH:......

------------------------------

Well, if you really need a reason, how 'bout "Because Sam-fucking-Harris says so!"? Now if we could only get him to reveal what his nine other "Things I don't like, therefore nobody should do, the great gas-bag has spoken" we could get him to carve those fuckers in stone for us. Then we'd really have a utopia on our hands, right folks?

What a fucking lightweight. Shhhh, Sam, the adults are talking.

It Begins...Pharyngula's shifting morality

Hello folks. This is my third or fourth attempt at a blog. Unfortunately in the past, whether through lack of time or sheer intellectual laziness, I've never been able to keep up my posting for more than a week or two before moving on to something more interesting. Never really long enough to build a reader base.

As a Christian anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I've recently found myself being drawn into the debate surrounding the ideas of the so-called "New Atheists"; Harris, Dawkins and the like. There are many excellent bloggers, foremost among them Vox Day, who have been challenging the often faulty logic of these second-rate philosophers, and I felt it was time for me to add my two cents. This won't be the sole focus of the blog, but it is a point of passion from which to start this adventure.

That said, here's a post of Pharyngula's that particularly stood out at me. Sorry if I'm late in commenting on this one folks.

-----------------------------------------

You would think Yale would attract a smarter class of stude…oh, wait. I forgot what famous Yalies have risen to power in this country. OK, maybe it's not surprising that a Yale freshman would raise the tired canard of the "amoral atheist".

Recent years have seen an influx of anti-religious publications in the Western world, as well as a growing audience for such publications. From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" to Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great," anti-theistic works have poured into bookstores as atheists in the United States and elsewhere have taken on a more strident tone in public discourse. Unfortunately, their approach has been one characterized more by noisy rhetoric than reasoned arguments, and they have particularly failed in their attempt to present a coherent system of morality that in no way rests on a belief in the supernatural.

Of course, Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That's not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.

This notion that morality is a reason to believe is a common thread to many religious apologetics, as is its complement, that atheism doesn't provide a moral rationale. In part, I agree: the simple statement that the world exists does not state how we should act within it, and the fact that the universe is godless does not dictate standards of human behavior. But then, neither would the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

---------------------------

You'll have to read further to get the full context, but here's my response (It will also help explain the title of the blog.)

Okay, that's all well and good, so long as you live in a situation where you're rewarded for your traditionally moral behavior.

Now let's assume that an opportunity presents itself whereby you and your family can greatly benefit, (let's say you'll score a few million dollars, but you can make it whatever motivation would be particularly appealing to you) simply by killing an innocent human being. Let's also assume that you can be completely assured that you will never have to answer for this murder for the rest of your life.
Why wouldn't you do it?

Give me one good reason not to murder an innocent person in this situation.

The only thing close to a good reason I could think of is that it would make you feel bad emotionally and/or physically. If you have another or better reason, please tell me.

But now, haven't you been given those very feelings by natural selection as a means to usher you towards those behaviors that would be most beneficial to the survival of you and your offspring?
So wouldn't it be logical to ignore your queasiness in this particualr situation and commit cold blooded murder to better insure the future transmission of your genes? It's simple cost benefit analysis: The potential benefits outweigh the potential costs (feeling unpleasant emotions versus assurance of continued survival).

So again, why not?

As far as you're entire take on the article in question, you've only addressed the minor argument, completely ignoring the question of why you should be moral in situations where it doesn't benefit you.
You're absolutely right, starting at morality and arguing backwards to god is a stretch. So why spend so much time rebutting the weakest point of the article and completely ignoring it's major point. The argument you should be addressing is the logical reasons to hold to traditional morals in situations where they are not beneficial to continued survival.

And as for the remark that a god (Let's assume a creator god for the moment) does not provide a basis for morality is just ludicrous. He made the universe from his own material, therefore he owns it, therefore he gets to dictate the rules. I'm sure you've heard the term "My house, my rules." Well, guess what? God's universe, God's rules. Makes sense to me.

By the way, this also happens to be the reason why I wouldn't kill you for several million dollars if the perfect opportunity presented itself. I happen to believe I am going to have to answer for things like that one day.

So if you can forgive my playfulness for a moment, might I say that you should still consider thanking Jesus (or other's belief in him) for saving you, not from damnation, but from people like me.
I can assure you that if I had no belief in a God whom I'll have to answer to for my actions, well, I'd have a lot of dead bodies in my wake.

Have atheists ever stopped to consider that it's the very religion they attack that is the only thing keeping a lot of other people from killing them and taking their stuff? Not everyone is as naturally moral as you guys, o enlightened ones. I guess some of us needed someone to write it down for us.