I seem to have stirred up a shit-storm at Pharyngula with my comments concerning atheist morality.
A few responses to a few reasonable questions:
From BronzeDog:
In addition to people pointing out the inherent criminality of ReasonKiller's mindset, I'll offer this bit that caught my attention:
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.
Do you sell your children into slavery, ReasonKiller?
Do you honestly think that might makes right? That's the only assumption I can think of that would fix the non-sequitur.
I can assure everyone that if I somehow ascend to deific status, I won't be ruling any sentient creations. I believe that sentient beings deserve a bit of dignity.
Couldn't skim the rest of ReasonKiller's stuff in detail, since he provoked a bit too much disgust for me to dwell on him.
----------
First, how would I have a legitimate legal claim to sell my children if I don't own the material they were made from? The Christian God gives us ownership over are bodies only in the sense that he doesn't zap us with lighting if we don't do what he wants with them. The entire universe still belongs to him (assuming hypothetically that he exists and created it.)
In a world without any objective standard, yes, obviously might makes right. Why wouldn't it? Because you think so? By what objective standards are your personal feelings more valid than mine on the matter? The obvious problem here is that there without an outside force that has the whole picture to judge from, there is no objective truth.
That dilemma has obviously been around longer than any of us.
But I still have yet to hear what I would classify as a truly "objective" reason not to rob, pillage and murder other than "it seems beneficial at this juncture."
Squirming away from the issue by making it a subjective matter is no help to me. We are suppose to be talking about objective reason here, so let's hear an objective reason.
Some have tried to make the point that morals of this type have evolved simply because living in a structured group is more beneficial than living on one's own. This makes plenty of sense. But then, these very same groups go on to rob, pillage and murder each other. And from the looks of some of the biggest historical pillagers, Europe and the United States, this seems to be a pretty beneficial way to conduct business, at least in terms of staying afloat.
Clearly group immorality is no different than individual immorality, only the scale differs. If they're behavior is beneficial to the group (at least at this particular juncture) why shouldn't it be continued?
---------------------
From Anton Mates:
I don't think you'd accept the "my house, my rules" rationale if you lived in an apartment and your landlord wanted to kill and eat you. Even if your landlord built the building and grew the trees which provided its wood himself.
-----------------
Of course I would. If I didn't like his rules I would simply choose not to live there. If you believe in God and don't like his rules you have the same option: kill yourself. You'll cease to exist and God will be free to use that material to make something else useful. Contrary to modern big church interpretations, there is no real foundation in the Bible to support the idea of an "eternal soul" or "eternal damnation in hellfire." The most literal interpretation of the related texts is that when you die you simply...die. Your thoughts perish. Let there be no doubt about that: dead people are dead. I have no illusions otherwise. From the Biblical standpoint, the dead must be resurrected in a physical body to live again. They are not floating around on clouds playing harps. They're dead. The soul and body are inseparable.
The problem comes from the fact that every single one of us has misused God's property while we are here. If I wanted to leave my insane landlord's apartment, I would be perfectly free to do so. If, however, I had busted up the walls and clogged up all the drains, I could be reasonably expected to pay for these in some way before I'm free and clear.
In the same way, God must stop you on your way out and make you suffer in some form and for some duration equal to the amount of injustice you yourself have caused during your borrowed time in this world. Therefore there are two resurrections: one for those made righteous by the intercession of Jesus, one for those who must be made to pay for their injustices. And then they will be no more. Even the devil himself will be ashes under the soles of our feet.
Whether you agree with God's choice of a lake of fire which burns some longer than others before destroying them completely as the ideal form of punishment, I think we can agree that if he created the universe, he does have the right to make you pay on your way out. And he obviously can't accept mastercard.
I think a lot of the confusion around my reasoning is that I haven't made it sufficiently clear where I stand on the matter of political philosophy, which inevitably colors the debate.
I'm a charitable anarcho-capitalist. But let me preface that by saying that I only hold to this particular position because my God also seems to hold to it. (obviously this will be vehemently debated, but let me say God is only this way when he dictates men's dealings among themselves. When it comes time for him to throw his own hat in the ring, he is a jealous monarchist, and so I revere him as such when dealing with him. This would be the first four commandments. Conversely, I adhere to anarcho-capitalism in my dealings with fellow humans. That would be the other six.)
You would be correct in assuming that without this basis I would in fact be a nihilist (more likely a totalitarian who thinks I should be the one in charge).
Unlike many people who float through life latching on to this or that political concept with no firm foundation to support their belief in anything, I must have some objective reason to hold to a particular political philosophy other than "it feels right to me."
The truth is exactly the opposite. Not killing people and taking their stuff doesn't feel right to me. As a hermit who has no desire to be part of a society, it potentially benefits me and it doesn't make me feel bad.
Not baring false witness to gain advantage over my neighbors doesn't feel right to me.
And I should probably stop right here and point out the fact that there have been numerous times in the (distant) past where I have stolen from others and gotten away with it. Without objective morals handed down from a source of sufficient intelligence and authority to judge the world, why, pray tell, shouldn't I have stolen those things? Will someone answer that question, please?
If Hitler won the war, got away with it, and continued on as the all powerful ruler of the world, why would there be anything objectively wrong with that? In this scenario he's proven he's the most fit animal, has he not?
That's not to say I and millions of people don't have perfectly legitimate reasons to believe in the big guy in the sky other than it restrains me from hurting other people. As a sociopath I have no emotional qualms about hurting other people if it benefits me. Again, I didn't get in trouble for stealing, and I can assure you I'm not going to in any legal sense.
The fact is, I don't like authority. I'm the last person who would be attracted to Christianity for emotional reasons. I'm a Doubting Thomas, I have to see it to believe it. From my subjective point of view, I have seen enough in life to reasonably assume that there is an intelligent force pulling strings behind the scenes.
I am not drawn to the Christian religion because it appeals to my inner need to be a sheep. I'm drawn to it because it is the current result of a lifelong struggle to understand the true nature of the universe. Whether you think I came to the wrong conclusion, or came to it by faulty logic, is another debate.
So let's change the question. Why shouldn't a sociopathic atheist harm others when it benefits him? Joseph Stalin seems to have completely gotten away with his horrible crimes, other than the fact that people now know about them in detail. (What does he care? He's dead.)
What magic words would you have whispered in old Uncle Joe's ear to make him change his ways?
No comments:
Post a Comment