Lost Interest

For the few of you still paying attention to me for some reason... I would like to let you know I have really lost interest in the blog format. So as you can tell from my already long hiatus I will not be posting in the foreseeable future. Barring some inspiration or irritating event over the coming months do not expect anything from me.

Lately I find myself writing poems and stories that will never see the light of day rather than writing blog posts on topics that no longer interest me.

Peace.

Secular Morality Vs. Religious Morality...

I was just recently asked a question that irks me to no end. I am often asked as someone who does not  believe in a god how I can determine what is moral without a divine arbiter of moral doctrines. I can get passed the seemingly condescending nature of this question. However I really cannot get passed the assumption they so haughtily make, and that is that their God ( God of Abraham) is the sole source of morality whilst excluding the possibilities of other gods that are not their own.

So if I may I will first answer the question asked of me before I will get angry, curse, and ridicule the stupidity that often surrounds this particular question. The source of morality is nothing divine and is not even specific to humans as most would assume. Morality is something innate within all social animals that is why we behave as we do that is why we are capable of things like empathy and sympathy. Social species without certain codes of conduct will not be able to propagate effectively and will simply die out. Imagine a society without a moral code of conduct, a society where  murder was prevalent, theft was a regular occurrence, lying was expected, and empathy was dead. How long will a society like that last? It sure as hell is not stable, bugger a society like that is representative of some of the fiction stories I have written during my spare time. They typically are crash and burn stories much like the Lord of The Flies except without the naval officer to end the barbarity. If you would just simulate an amoral society in your mind you will see that it quickly decays and thus does not propagate or survive effectively.

Morality is not a human construct but one formed naturally and originally for pragmatic reasons. Social animals do very well when compared to organisms that survive on their own. We do not murder because it is bad for society, we do not steal from other because it is bad for society, and we deceive in a way that will harm others. Once you recognise that society is for the benefit of those and involved you can why they would form (out of completely selfish reasons).

As the title suggest I am going to compare the very basic morality derived from evolutionary processes to that of religious morality. Namely the morality within the Christian and Jewish holy texts it may seem like I speak of them more often than other faiths but this is with good reason. They are the most prevalent within my society and the most influential when it comes to governing. The influence of other religious doctrines on my life is nonexistent so If I were to speak on that it would be out of ignorance.

This may seem a bit backwards but before I address what their morality is I am going to address things like their motivation to behave morally, why they call a moral and b immoral etc.. The reason for this is to establish beforehand the faulty premises of their moral code as faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. So if I first establish the faulty premises I will not have to address the conclusions as extensively. Let us look at why something would be immoral under the Christian/Jewish world view. Under this worldview morality is determined by divine command there is no way around it, it is cited as their sole source for moral behaviour. So moral behaviour is determined by divine mandate, what is moral is now determined by the whims of a deity. So if a god order the slaughter of men, women, and children as he often did the immoral thing to do would be to let them live. Not murdering children in these instances are immoral act while murdering them made you a righteous man of god. This renders morality to be a measure of obedience rather than a display of ethical behaviour. Yet they claim my morality is not sound and consistent? Secular morality advocates the well being of society and individuals. Religious morality demands obedience to the whims of a celestial tyrant with a blood fetish.

Now for the motivation as mentioned previously the motivation for acting morally is for the benefit of individual and society. The motivation for following religious morality is fear of divine retribution and hope of divine reward. I almost feel like I don't have to expand on why fear is an inferior motivation, that should be self-evident. Contained withing secular motivation is an innate concern for the well being of others... Religious motivation for acting morally comes from a fear of an authority figure.


"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Einstein
Now who is moral within these groups and what is the criteria for being a good person... In secular morality you are judged on your behaviour toward others, what kind of person you are, and the kind of life you lead. In christianity you need only to do one thing believe that Jesus was saved you and you are off the hook for anything you could dream of doing. Under christianity you are no longer accountable for what you do as god has made someone accountable for you. Yet I am an atheist because I want to sin? If I wanted to act immorally and get away with it I would have remained a christian and heeded the great enlightened moral lessons of not boiling a baby goat in its mothers milk.


So in conclusion it is pretty clear that secular morality provides a far more reasonable and objective moral code than that of religious morality. Secular morality also holds people to a higher standards and does not shift the blame on a human scapegoat. So next time you ask me where my morals come from in that "holier than thou" tone of voice you should probably ask yourself that same question beforehand.

P.S. My views on morality have significantly changed since my last post on the subject nearly a year ago, I am leaving it up for  the purpose of reference. So please note that they are no longer indicative of my beliefs and any contradictions between this post and my last one are not accidental.

Final Prayer

I started recollecting from back when I was a northern Baptist choir boy, when I actually did believe the God of the Bible. I used to pray to this God when I was in a bit of trouble whether it be an actual crisis or a crisis of faith, I remembered how important these prayers where to me how they brought me comfort. I used to lead my congregation in prayer for every Wednesday night service. But then one day I noticed that very few of my prayer were met I didn't get these signals I asked for when my faith was weak. I prayed for the health of my loved ones but I still was forced to watch them die and wither away.

The prayers that were once so significant to me now have stopped.. I do not remember the last prayer I had done, it was probably something with little thought like a meal time prayer. I refuse to let something that was once so significant to me go out in such an inane way so I decided to write one last prayer.

Dear God,

I know you must be busy feeding your preachers with sermons and apologetics so I decided to write it down so that you might read it later. Why did you ignore my prayers? I spoke to you multiple times everyday but you never answered back not once? Am I not important enough to answer? I was told you loved me but you seemed to have ignored me. Certainly you would have known how bitter this would have made me and how it would have turned me away from you, you are omniscient. Is not not then your fault that I walked away? Surely I cannot be blamed for this apostascy as it was you who neglected me. However your guilt goes much deeper than simple neglect my father, every night you would get drunk on rage and slap humanity around. Why bother?

Why were you so angry with us? Sure we did break some rule and made mistakes, but even gods have fell. But you condemn us still? Why my father did you not try to talk to us? We could have been buds but instead you decide to break out the pestilence and floods. You are an angry god guilty of sin and murder. Do I need to take it any further? You were angry and jealous as my began to wander. But is that such a crime just to sit  and ponder?

I am leaving you now for I given you all the time I can allow. Just remember that it was not me and its you; the neglect and anger is why we through.  My dear lord I know I have asked many questions for you to answer, but don't worry about it  I never expected anything that is for damn sure. So it is time for me to run, and don't worry next time Ill pray to the sun.

For the last time in your empty vain name, amen.

An Open Lettre to All Those Who It Applies; A Rant, Self-Pwnage.

 I was going to do a post about the Nietzsche's death of god but quite frankly it does matter. Lately I have been posting worthless musings about philosophy that don't really apply to anything, maybe I even let it get to the point that I just started posted bitter hatred toward anything religious. Was a faking my indignation? Quite possibly but with little in the way of external criticism I was left posting as I was. Was I being bitter and angry? Almost certainly yes. Maybe I should seek to apply my philosophy in practical things instead of being just another voice bitching about the evils of everything. The internet is full of angry and mentally spent men, I was becoming one of them. I am going to try to stop being so dull about the topics I choose. Angry criticism can be useful but not when you are being outwardly hostile and negative toward who you are criticising. I have forgotten the philosophy means much more when you can apply it to life and not abstract ideas. Making, criticism that helps instead of wailing hopelessly on topics of little value... I wish apply philosophy in a way that positively benefits the lives of others or at least myself. For now on Im going to try to make criticisms with a purpose, and try and avoid religion sucks because of x,y, and z.


Anyway I was inspired today by a very judgmental Christian and after a bit of introspection I was left to the current mindset I am now. To every street preacher yelling out bible verses to an unattentive audience, to every preacher handing out edicts of hatred from their pulpit, to every protester hold signs espousing your hatred to homosexuals, to every evangelist who declares we are worthy of hell because we are the scum of the earth, I say this. Who are you to judge? Who are you to throw verses from your ancient text condemning people as though they are the ones who claimed to live by the text? Who are you to hypocritically shout verses about others supposed sins? You are in no place to judge the lives of anyone. To these people god has merely become a tool to support their agendas, their prejudices, and their argument. Whether god has ever been anything more than this is open for discussion however their is one thing that is not.


You are not a prophet of god you are no more qualified to portray the will of this deity than any other person with a thought on the matter. What would a god seeing this behaviour think? The god of nature, the god of an infinitely majestic universe.


Oh, and to the atheist secularist, or anyone who feels the need to reciprocate this hate; I have one question. 


Why?

2012 Elections... Bugger I suppose I must.

 Don't think it is just fabulous that we as a strong democracy in the western word get together to change suits every couple years. Isn't it great to what you think really matters? Isn't great that we have a government for the people and by the people? Isn't it great that you are so full of yourself that you can't see what is right in front of your face?

It is an interesting ritual we have in the United States every election year especially when selecting a president. We tend to get really patriotic and delusional about our actual influence in the government as a whole. We wave flags and proclaim if you just vote for the right candidate things will get better but it as been shown that the differences between candidates are superficial at best. For evidence of this you merely need to look at the last presidential election and the results thereof. Mr. Obama was to be the change America wanted and had ran on that platform but now nearly completed with his term, he continued on as Bush would have. The only change made was the person sitting behind the resolute desk. I have to admit that I myself even being a free market Libertarian was guilty on some level as taking this hope at face value. I hoped to see the end of international policing, and more advances in social issues but I think it goes without saying that the results were sub-par. I know I went on a bit of a tangent but I wont remove it because I find it necessary.

Back to the original point now, there is little difference between the candidates. Where you see huge irreconcilable philosophical differences that separate the parties I see varying degrees of the same ideology. Voting is futile when you know whoever you vote for will continue on as the previous powers before them.

Hell even if you find someone that would genuinely change things for the better he would never get elected for one simple reason the idiots outnumber you. For every educated voter you have thousands of voters who look at the letter behind the politician's name and vote in step with their party. In a country full of inept people is it any surprise they have an equally inept government. A government of the people is as only as good as the people. It is said democracy is mob rule and I would say that is right to a degree. However at least mobs tends to be organized and have a single object of anger, in this case we have millions of bickering citizens spouting off their ignorance whilst explaining why their brand of stupidity should rule the nation.

Also their is another thing getting in the way of this utopian democracy idea we Americans tend to have and that is by design we are not a democracy and this was intentionally done. Just imagine a pure democracy where your right were subject to the whims of the electorate. Just imagine having 4 christians and an atheist voting on religious freedoms, it would be a mess. Even with the protections we are supposed to have now we our struggling to protect our rights, look at all that has been done whilst exploiting the fears of the electorate. The infringement of fourth amendment rights, the torture of those in our custody, the selective removal of habeas corpus etc.. As of right now we are bastardized republic under corporate rule and that is a problem that needs more than a presidential election to fix.

Pascal's Wager? Meh better odds in vegas.

  Pascal's wager is a relatively simple idea but it is flawed in its very concept. Simply put it states there is infinite rewards for believing in the Christian deity and an infinite amount of punishment for not believing. So Pascal states that you better be on the safe side and believe because if the atheists are right nothing happens after death so you haven't really lost anything.

This ignores two basic facets of a thing we call reality, the first and most obvious in my opinion is the false dichotomy it creates. This wager might be worth considering if there is only two options faith in the Christian deity or non-faith. However there are an infinite or at least an unfathomably large number of faiths each contradicting each other. Then it is your daunting task to figure out which of the innumerable faiths is true or whether none of them are. Imagine it this way you are playing Russian roulette with a revolver with an extremely conservative estimate of say 1,000,000 different chambers (each chamber representing a different faith or no faith) 1 of these chambers is empty (representing the correct choice assuming there is one). 1:1,000,000 odds how are you liking your odds now Pascal?

The second problem is the idea that people can choose belief or disbelief. Belief or disbelief is a reaction beyond our control, like a mental reflex you have when you know someone is telling you a bunch of rubbish. If I were to tell you there was an invisible and intangible village of elves living inside my closet you would be immediately skeptical as you simply cannot believe it. Can you choose to believe in this village of elves? Of course not, it is a reaction beyond your control when someone who makes a great claim and offers no evidence. But yet whenever a local church member knocks on my door trying to get me to participate in their services they act as though my skepticism is a choice rather than a reaction. Maybe they act like that because they really don't believe themselves, maybe they act like that because they have to keep telling themselves that this is the truth, maybe they think if they keep lying to themselves their own skepticism they have will just go away. I don't know what it is but I cannot convince myself to believe in something I do not, sorry.

The Moral Argument? What Rubbish!

Alright, this one was a long time coming I have seen this argument used so many times that it makes me sick. I thought I would write about it here because it really irks the hell out of me when some smug Christian thinks he is an intellectual heavyweight when he uses this or some variation of this argument.

So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.

1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.

Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.

The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.

My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."

My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.

Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)

With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.

The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.