Fun Fact for today...

As some have you might have figured out by navigating through my pretense of anonymity, my last name is Spooner.

In fact, my Grandfather was a Massachusetts Spooner who's family had been in the area for quite some time.

Which leads me to my point:

I have no proof family tree wise, but I have reason to suspect that the great Libertarian anarchist author Lysander Spooner (who's complete works can be accessed from the links) is a relative of my great-great-grandfather, most likely some form of cousin a few times removed.

Not that this confers any of his gravitas onto me personally, but it does give me warm feelings to know that my family has some serious Libertarian and Abolitionist roots dating as far back as the run-up to the civil war.

Oddly enough, I became an anarcho-capitalist (which is an almost, but not quite accurate description of Lysander Spooner's personal philosophy) wholly independent of this knowledge, which made the discovery all the more titillating.

Some responses at Pharyngula...

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?

Urk...

Ugg, Bluggxt. I have been awake for two days now drinking beer and cough syrup keeping myself at a level mentally charged enough to take on the task at hand at my work.

Forgive me if my thoughts, and/or this blog get a little sloppy in the meantime.

You see, I work in a restaurant which has been rather busy for the last few days, and we also just had three people walk out of the dish room, so me and my brother have been stalking around like ninjas for a couple of days, running things in the night dish works.. Hell, I wasn't even supposed to work today. I do believe I've torn something in my shoulder as well as poking my hip very deeply with the corner of a stainless steel table.

Most people probably have no idea how hard it is to work as a dishwasher at a high class restaurant for any length of time.

The difference of labor class is never more apparent than when working in a restaurant. The server would be the upper-middle class, the kitchen the blue collars. Dining room manager is pure white collar

Anyway, I work in the dishroom, and amb berry por childrens:)>, and cross over doing prep and ovens.

To listen to a lot of the servers whine sometimes, they make clear their origins. Wealthy parents, things coming in life too easily.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but really, things haven't come to me in life so easily. I probably could have gone to college if anybody had happened to have the money or know how to get money for me from the government for community college. I guess I would have been a computer science major. At this point I seem to have lost interest and am pursuing other areas of advancement

But in the meantime, I work in a busy fucking restaurant, and I require a lot of chemicals to get me by on a daily basis. Therefore, I am treated like a scrub even though I can safely say that I work twice as hard and fast as anyone else there.

But I am lucky in that I have I actually found a narrow little niche here where my anarcho-capitlalist, zero-tolerance for lazy pussies attitude can be fully and publicly expressed in the form of the concentrated psychotic rage required simply to navigate about in that environment.

The General Manager often jokes that she should make all the servers spend at least one night in the dishroom.

That would be rather funny.

Really, if anyone is looking for modern day ninja training, restaurant dishroom work while tweaked out on dextromethorphan will make you sleak and silent as a motherfucker. I've seriously been putting on new bulk for when I (hope to) enter into MMA matches simply by picking up extra shifts.

It's better than any gym and they pay me for it.

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.