I am a child of the internet, I grew up with the information super high way and was perhaps one of the first generations to do so.
Debates, flame wars, and irrational arguments are part of my heritage.
The thing about a discussion is that you present your views and your arguments and you understand that lies and aggression dont resolve disputes... ever. When people get nasty the debate becomes a war and people will fight it not because they feel they are right but because they think the other side does not deserve to win.
The other day I made a comment on an article on a pro-life website. It was a small comment but it triggered some interesting responses. Specifically the person was of the opinion that "To discuss a moral issue without [the christian] god was [insane]" effectively throwing out any non-theistic argument.
I dont claim this person is representative of the people who read and comment on this type of article... In fact I think the vast majority are much more moderate in their views and would never say that a person who did not believe in Jesus should be banned form a moral debate.
But where were these people?
I comment on blogs often (faith based, secular, and atheistic) and I never see the moderates telling off the radicals on faith based forums. In the secular and atheists forums/comment threads it's different I have seen people pulled up for saying "I hope the burglar gets caught and that he is punished" simply because the person writing it used the masculine pronoun assuming the thief in question was male.
Outside of faith-based discussions people have far less problems calling out someone on their side for making a non-factual or fallacious argument.
I made a comment myself about what should and should not be allowed to be taught to kids in an atheist forum and was pulled up on it by another member, he was right and I changed my stand accordingly.
But on faith discussions I see far less willingness to do so...
Recently in one article on a pro-life website I have seen people in the comments claim that sex outside natural marriage was rape, and that using a condom was murder.
Why is it that the moderates of faith let those statements slide?
I know people who have been raped, for whom the experience was so terrible it still effects them years later. To liken all consensual sex, all love making outside of a christian marriage to that experience is insulting enough to me but those people who have experienced rape, it is a dismissal of all their pain with a single semantic swipe.
In other articles I have seen people claim that no woman ever dies from not receiving an abortion, this discussion just days before a woman in ireland died because they would not performa life saving procedure while there was a foetal heart beat, nor would they abort the foetus even though the child could not be saved. Savita Halappanavar was the victim of a faith based policy that says when the mothers life can only be saved by terminating the child it is better to let them both die.
Again, why is it that the only people calling these people out, the only ones willing to stand up and point out the absurdity of the claim that abortions are never needed to save a mothers life were people who were pro-choice. Did nobody on the pro life side realise that the facts had been distorted to support the claim?
As far as I can see it is because people of faith hold that others are entitled to their beliefs even if it is radicalised and would cost lives, even if it is bigoted, and even if it is manifestly wrong.
Unless of course... those beliefs contradicts the laws of god.
Then it is not a belief to be tolerated, it is immorality, it is evil, or it is "insanity".
It has been said by many people better than me that moderate religious positions create safe harbours for dangerous radicals most of who are fundamentalists or literalists.
I think this is only true because moderates too often fail in their duty to fight the extreme views they do not share. They allow tolerance of different peoples of faith to prevent them from chastising and openly disagreeing with statements and practices that go against their own morals.
They do this simply because they have been raised to think "faith" is a virtue.
It takes a major event like a woman dying after days of agony or a you girl being shot in the face to stimulate people of faith to protect against their bedfellows.
But by then it is too late and the damage has been done.
It is important for anyone engaged in a debate to remain intellectually honest, this means not trading in your ethics and not throwing away your principles in favor of flawed or untruthful arguments. It also means not silently accenting to arguments that you fundamentally disagree with just because it suits your current position.
I dont claim that only people of faith are subject to this particular weakness, it seduces anyone who feels passionate about their position but the when you consider faith a virtue you have a blind spot to the motivations of others who share that faith.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Monday, 19 November 2012
Sunday, 11 November 2012
The Thoughtless Insult
Since I wrote my post on the ten commandments I've had several discussions about atheist morality, what it is, where it comes from, etc.
Whenever two groups discuss morality there is a high potential for offense, but it is surprising to see the level so high in a debate when (in general) both sides share so many common moral values.
So I thought I'd write a post covering some of my thoughts on the claims made about and against atheists when it comes to morality, listed here in ascending order of offense.
To the people who repeat these claims they are not necessarily intending to be offensive, but they are. The simple fact that atheists do find these claims offensive should indicate that morality is actually something important to and valued by the vast majority of atheists.
Statements like "Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity. ." are often made without citing any supporting evidence.
In fact it's hard to even find any supporting evidence for this outside of repeated claims and anecdotal collections published by pro-religion groups.
While it's true that atheists/secularists are more likely to engage in underage alcohol use and illegal drugs, actual addiction rates are no different between the atheists and theists. This implies that atheists are at greater risk, yet they do not succumb more. If we proceed from the position that faith is even a factor we have to conclude that it is a negative one that weakens people to temptation... Or we take the much more reasonable view that faith is simply not a factor in alcoholism and addiction despite the claims made to the contrary.
The bulk of the reputable research done on the subject actually points the other way as shown in the 2009 paper "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" by Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College. In the paper Zuckerman refers to and cites quite a few different studies that constitute what academics call a preponderance of evidence in support of the idea that atheists show no indication of being more subject to moral/social ills than theists.
Of course this was not new even in 2009, back in 2005 an article was published in Journal of Religion & Society (http://www.creighton.edu/JRS) with the catchy title "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" that simply compared level of religious belief in modern democracies with various social ills. It highlighted again that modern democracies with the lowest level of religion have the lowest levels of social problems in almost all regards.
The other claims that atheists are moral relativists or social darwinists are just as offensive to the majority of atheists. Mostly because it is wrong, secular humanism remains the largest identified moral/ethical position held by atheists.
However these claims are also offensive because they are often accompanied by extreme examples actively designed to offend.
I heard one debate in which the pro faith representative explained moral relativism by saying "Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you... the most horrible, painful event in your life... now imagine the person who committed that crime simply claimed that in his culture it was not considered evil so he had done nothing wrong" - the debater in question also tried to say that this was not an appeal to emotion.
Mostly however the claim of moral relativism is offensive because there are three types of moral relativism and each one of them is reflected by religious apologetics to some extent.
Descriptive Moral Relativism - is simply the observation of the fact that different cultures have different moral standards - Any person of faith who accepts that other faiths should be allowed to practice their beliefs is agreeing with this premis.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism - is the contention that good/bad, right/wrong, dont have a universal truth to them and they depend on the social, historical, cultural, traditional and physical contexts - The common example I see for this is the way in which modern christians separate themselves from the crimes of the old testament and gods wrath with phrase like "well that was a different time and different world..."
Normative Moral Relativism - goes beyond meta-ethical and claims that we should ought to tolerate the moral views of others whose standards contradict our own - This is the moral relativism used to create harsh examples to attack atheism. Most philosophers point out that you cannot get to an "ought" position from a relativistic premis. In reality one of the easiest to find examples of people following this normative line of reasoning can be seen when moderates tolerate extremists of the same religion.
Tolerance of others requires either hypocrisy or moral relativity in some quantity but most people would not identify with the extreme examples of moral relativity offered by religionists who seek to paint atheists as incapable of moral consistency/integrity.
I must admit I was tempted to totally ignore the claims of social darwinism
I could have done for no other reason than the term itself is mostly used today in a pejorative sense, that is to say if used as a derogatory name, Almost no-body actually identifies as a social darwinist now or in the last twenty years. So it is used almost exclusively by it's detractors at best as an example of a hypothetical or historical philosophical position or at worst (and this makes more sense in the debate over atheist morals) as a straw-man argument.
But if claims are expected to stand on their merits then so must rejections of claims.
Social darwinism can be simply described as an ideology that seeks to apply concepts of darwinian evolution to society. It carries the assumption that conflict and competition for limited resources is the best way to determine which social values are most effective.
The "darwinism" part was added only after Darwin published The Origin Of Species - the idea itself predates darwin. And while Darwin indicated a process by which change occurred he did not ascribe any value other than its suitability to survive in a given set of environmental conditions.
It is clear however that ANY value system applied to a system other than direct survivability precludes the adoption of social darwinism.
Religionists will often support the claim by quoting atheists who have said the universe is uncaring and extend that incorrectly, to assume that atheists are uncaring. Atheists however do not simply adopt the values of the universe.
An atheist knows that a house fire is a physical event that will not distinguish between a rabbit in a cage and baby in a cot, however that does not mean the atheist himself holds no such distinction - In fact the atheist is human and has all the instinctive, cultural, and intellectually generated values that that necessarily entails.
The fact that fire does not discriminate in it's victims demonstrates that the universe does not work to an absolute moral dictum. The fact that humans do discriminate and value some things more than others indicates that we are able to generate morality in the absence of a an absolute dictum.
The final claim is the most offensive. That atheists get their morality from god.
This neatly filters all evidence to supports their claim. Anything anyone does that is good is so because god wrote it on their hearts, anything they do that is bad, is so because we are fallen or imperfect.
I would not (but do not deny that some atheists do) make the counter claim that any reason you have for not believing in god is rationalism and any reason you have for believing in god is insanity.
Both the religionist claim and the counter claim are circular logic, they are only supported by themselves. In the claim religionists redefine "good" as actions resulting from gods influence and "bad" as actions resulting from the fall of man. In the (equally unsupported) counter argument "insanity" is defined as belief in god and "rationalism" as the rejection of god.
So neither stament has any logical or evidentiary value.
The claim that all atheist morality comes from god can therefore not be tested or supported and the only valid source for such a statement is revelation. They claim special knowledge that cannot be, by it's nature, shared or proven externally.
The religionists who make this claim are attempting to use an absolutely subjective experience, to justify an absolutely objective claim.
Thats why I think the claim is at worst wrong and at best unusable, but I said the claim it self was offensive.
When I argue with other people I always have to accept that they may be right, that they may, in the course of discussions, introduce a new concept or new evidence to support their position that will change the way I think on a particular matter.
But the claim that atheists are moral because god makes them that way dismisses any personal values I may bring to the table, it lays claim to any good thought, good action, or good intention any atheist exhibits. It is a claim that devalues the atheist and his beliefs, a blind judgement without any recourse or appeal.
This level of arrogance is what I find most offensive, this lack of understanding, and this intellectual dishonesty in entering a debate when no evidence or argument will shift then from their position. These claims are not made directly and personally against any individual atheist, but they are made and apply to any and all people who identify as atheist or subscribe to and atheistic morality.
Whenever two groups discuss morality there is a high potential for offense, but it is surprising to see the level so high in a debate when (in general) both sides share so many common moral values.
So I thought I'd write a post covering some of my thoughts on the claims made about and against atheists when it comes to morality, listed here in ascending order of offense.
- Atheists have no morality and think there is no such things as right or wrong
- Atheists are moral relativists so anything is permissible if the person thinks it is
- Atheists believe in social darwinism
- Atheists do know right from wrong because god wrote it on their heart even if they dont believe
To the people who repeat these claims they are not necessarily intending to be offensive, but they are. The simple fact that atheists do find these claims offensive should indicate that morality is actually something important to and valued by the vast majority of atheists.
Statements like "Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity. ." are often made without citing any supporting evidence.
In fact it's hard to even find any supporting evidence for this outside of repeated claims and anecdotal collections published by pro-religion groups.
While it's true that atheists/secularists are more likely to engage in underage alcohol use and illegal drugs, actual addiction rates are no different between the atheists and theists. This implies that atheists are at greater risk, yet they do not succumb more. If we proceed from the position that faith is even a factor we have to conclude that it is a negative one that weakens people to temptation... Or we take the much more reasonable view that faith is simply not a factor in alcoholism and addiction despite the claims made to the contrary.
Of course this was not new even in 2009, back in 2005 an article was published in Journal of Religion & Society (http://www.creighton.edu/JRS) with the catchy title "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" that simply compared level of religious belief in modern democracies with various social ills. It highlighted again that modern democracies with the lowest level of religion have the lowest levels of social problems in almost all regards.
The other claims that atheists are moral relativists or social darwinists are just as offensive to the majority of atheists. Mostly because it is wrong, secular humanism remains the largest identified moral/ethical position held by atheists.
However these claims are also offensive because they are often accompanied by extreme examples actively designed to offend.
I heard one debate in which the pro faith representative explained moral relativism by saying "Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you... the most horrible, painful event in your life... now imagine the person who committed that crime simply claimed that in his culture it was not considered evil so he had done nothing wrong" - the debater in question also tried to say that this was not an appeal to emotion.
Mostly however the claim of moral relativism is offensive because there are three types of moral relativism and each one of them is reflected by religious apologetics to some extent.
Descriptive Moral Relativism - is simply the observation of the fact that different cultures have different moral standards - Any person of faith who accepts that other faiths should be allowed to practice their beliefs is agreeing with this premis.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism - is the contention that good/bad, right/wrong, dont have a universal truth to them and they depend on the social, historical, cultural, traditional and physical contexts - The common example I see for this is the way in which modern christians separate themselves from the crimes of the old testament and gods wrath with phrase like "well that was a different time and different world..."
Normative Moral Relativism - goes beyond meta-ethical and claims that we should ought to tolerate the moral views of others whose standards contradict our own - This is the moral relativism used to create harsh examples to attack atheism. Most philosophers point out that you cannot get to an "ought" position from a relativistic premis. In reality one of the easiest to find examples of people following this normative line of reasoning can be seen when moderates tolerate extremists of the same religion.
Tolerance of others requires either hypocrisy or moral relativity in some quantity but most people would not identify with the extreme examples of moral relativity offered by religionists who seek to paint atheists as incapable of moral consistency/integrity.
I must admit I was tempted to totally ignore the claims of social darwinism
I could have done for no other reason than the term itself is mostly used today in a pejorative sense, that is to say if used as a derogatory name, Almost no-body actually identifies as a social darwinist now or in the last twenty years. So it is used almost exclusively by it's detractors at best as an example of a hypothetical or historical philosophical position or at worst (and this makes more sense in the debate over atheist morals) as a straw-man argument.
But if claims are expected to stand on their merits then so must rejections of claims.
Social darwinism can be simply described as an ideology that seeks to apply concepts of darwinian evolution to society. It carries the assumption that conflict and competition for limited resources is the best way to determine which social values are most effective.
The "darwinism" part was added only after Darwin published The Origin Of Species - the idea itself predates darwin. And while Darwin indicated a process by which change occurred he did not ascribe any value other than its suitability to survive in a given set of environmental conditions.
It is clear however that ANY value system applied to a system other than direct survivability precludes the adoption of social darwinism.
Religionists will often support the claim by quoting atheists who have said the universe is uncaring and extend that incorrectly, to assume that atheists are uncaring. Atheists however do not simply adopt the values of the universe.
An atheist knows that a house fire is a physical event that will not distinguish between a rabbit in a cage and baby in a cot, however that does not mean the atheist himself holds no such distinction - In fact the atheist is human and has all the instinctive, cultural, and intellectually generated values that that necessarily entails.
The fact that fire does not discriminate in it's victims demonstrates that the universe does not work to an absolute moral dictum. The fact that humans do discriminate and value some things more than others indicates that we are able to generate morality in the absence of a an absolute dictum.
The final claim is the most offensive. That atheists get their morality from god.
This neatly filters all evidence to supports their claim. Anything anyone does that is good is so because god wrote it on their hearts, anything they do that is bad, is so because we are fallen or imperfect.
I would not (but do not deny that some atheists do) make the counter claim that any reason you have for not believing in god is rationalism and any reason you have for believing in god is insanity.
Both the religionist claim and the counter claim are circular logic, they are only supported by themselves. In the claim religionists redefine "good" as actions resulting from gods influence and "bad" as actions resulting from the fall of man. In the (equally unsupported) counter argument "insanity" is defined as belief in god and "rationalism" as the rejection of god.
So neither stament has any logical or evidentiary value.
The claim that all atheist morality comes from god can therefore not be tested or supported and the only valid source for such a statement is revelation. They claim special knowledge that cannot be, by it's nature, shared or proven externally.
The religionists who make this claim are attempting to use an absolutely subjective experience, to justify an absolutely objective claim.
Thats why I think the claim is at worst wrong and at best unusable, but I said the claim it self was offensive.
When I argue with other people I always have to accept that they may be right, that they may, in the course of discussions, introduce a new concept or new evidence to support their position that will change the way I think on a particular matter.
But the claim that atheists are moral because god makes them that way dismisses any personal values I may bring to the table, it lays claim to any good thought, good action, or good intention any atheist exhibits. It is a claim that devalues the atheist and his beliefs, a blind judgement without any recourse or appeal.
This level of arrogance is what I find most offensive, this lack of understanding, and this intellectual dishonesty in entering a debate when no evidence or argument will shift then from their position. These claims are not made directly and personally against any individual atheist, but they are made and apply to any and all people who identify as atheist or subscribe to and atheistic morality.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Ten Commandments
When discussing/challenging a persons belief in christianity especially when the morals of the church come into question, the most common come back is to say something along the lines:
No.
I don't agree.
The ten commandments are a thin and flawed set of rules to live by that falls far short of the precepts of most other systems of ethics (including those around prior to Jesus).
Most of the people who cling to them can't even remember all the ten commandments. When I challenge those who claim to live by them, they are able to list only a few like: "Dont kill, dont steal, dont lie, dont covet... um..." This is not made any easier by the fact there are several different "official" versions depending on what church you follow. But even so, if it is such a great and simple moral code, why is it so hard to remember?
Because the first four commandments have NOTHING to do with morality... They are all concerned with enforcing religious observance, (I'm using the ten commandment read from the King James Bible because its a very common translation easy to recognise by people who dont read the bible regularly).
That leaves us with only FIVE commandments that directly relate to how humans deal with other humans on equal terms rather dealing with religion and authority figures.
So this is not a bad start... but it's just a start. For example, killing and harming are two different things, so these laws say you could beat people if you like. Threats and intimidation are still ok in the right circumstances. In fact domestic abuse, rape, child abuse, and slavery are all acceptable under the commandment of "thou shalt not kill".
Outright theft is condemned but not manipulation for gain. The bible, for instance, talks about slavery (even of other followers of god), and says that after 6 years you must set them free... however Exodus 21:4-6 actually includes a loophole, give the slave a wife and let him have children! That way he must leave his family or agree to be your slave forever. Not really theft, blackmail perhaps?
And for all those who say the example is poor because "slavery is wrong", please notice the commandments dont say that. The people who followed the commandments didn't think it either. The commandments failed to prevent it, even for a people who took them far more seriously than most people do now.
Adultery is an interesting one because it is so specific "sex with someone other than your spouse". This gives no guidance against sex outside of a relationship, or other commitment. It also does not include anything about the conditions under which marriage may be established or dissolved. Nothing to stop a young woman being given as bride against her will, nothing allow the dissolution of a marriage if one side becomes abusive.
The truth is that these commandments are pretty poor representations of these ideas, in fact they are all stated much better by the Five Precepts of Buddhism.
Not killing is replaced with not causing harm (to humans and animals), simply not stealing is replaced by not taking what is not given (covering theft but also slavery because the service is taken not given), adultery is broadened to sexual misconduct in general (not too much, no rape, dont cause offense with it, etc) and finally do not lie is replaced with avoiding false speech, which would include unwarranted gossip, and deliberate omissions, promises you intend to break...
So what little the ten commandments do say about morality, they don't say very well.
Of course it's worth pointing out that there is no commandment saying thou shalt not lie... You'll notice that commandment nine only talks about bearing "false witness". It is not a general commandment, they actually went to the trouble of narrowing it down to a specific case of law and left other lies un guarded. Although elsewhere in the bible this is corrected, you again would think a commandment from god would be a little clearer.
So we come to commandment ten. This is not an ethical or moral value, it's a thought crime. This commandment is all about suppressing the "yearn to possess what others may have", lets be generous and call it a commandment against jealousy. But it does not censure any action, only the desire. This is telling you what not to want. Do not desire what others have.
Why?
Thinking about what others have or at least what you do not have, has been one of the driving forces behind our development as a species, a culture, and as individuals. My desire to learn got me through school, my desire for a nice house got me on the property ladder, my desire for love helped me get up the courage to ask the most wonderful woman in the world if she would marry me (she said yes :).
Desire is not an evil itself - you only have to talk to christians to see that they all desire to do the right thing, they all desire to have gods love, and interestingly they all desire you to have it to.
This cannot in and of itself be wrong, and telling people not to want something others have is going to fail. Full stop end of discussion. The only way to live with number ten would be to not desire anything, not just anything worldly, but anything at all.
I'm not saying desire and jealousy cant and doesn't lead to other crimes, but I'm saying it also leads to some great ideas and great achievements. In fact most people in the US would claim that competition between peers is one of the things that drive innovation and contributes to the power of their economy.
A better statement would be "Feel no ill towards people who have what you do not", it's still a thought crime but at least this is one people can strive towards. It lets people keep their drive and ambition but not at the expense of others.
So now we come to the elephant in the room. When people talk about the commandments, they always seem to skirt around whats missing. The bible is full of horror stories and christianity/the new testament seems, at least in part, to be an attempt to correct or extend the moral/ethical framework into something more workable.
It's interesting to reflect that in the century or so prior to Jesus coming onto the scene, Stoic ethics were well travelled and established. There are a great deal of similarities between the "christian" ethics and that of the stoics. In fact the people who actually write the gospels lived mainly in lands dominated by stoic ethics. Some people have claimed that christianity was basically a revision of an existing belief system to be more in line with the accepted ethics of the time - replacing stoic fatalism with a God who would no longer be swayed by burned offerings...
However the ten commandments are still considered the core value
So what is missing from the ten commandments?
I cannot accept that.
I will not punish someone for something they did not do. I will not blame a child for the crime of their parent, I will not send a man to prison for the crime of his brother, and I will not allow someone else to suffer for my mistakes. It is unjust by definition, and even if it is allowed by law, to actually accept such a generous offer is a morally bankrupt act.
So I say again: No.
The ten commandments are not enough, they are poorly phrased, they contain omissions, they are full of dogma and ceremony, they are biased towards authority and most importantly... they failed. The people god gave his commandments to were not good by todays standards, they were not moral, or kind, or generous. They were cruel, they kept slaves, and they sacrificed animals, using the blood of others to wash their hands clean of sin.
Only someone who has never considered the question of how to improve them would think it could not easily be done.
"But what about the ten commandments? don't you agree
they are a really good basis for a moral life?"
No.
I don't agree.
The ten commandments are a thin and flawed set of rules to live by that falls far short of the precepts of most other systems of ethics (including those around prior to Jesus).
Most of the people who cling to them can't even remember all the ten commandments. When I challenge those who claim to live by them, they are able to list only a few like: "Dont kill, dont steal, dont lie, dont covet... um..." This is not made any easier by the fact there are several different "official" versions depending on what church you follow. But even so, if it is such a great and simple moral code, why is it so hard to remember?
Because the first four commandments have NOTHING to do with morality... They are all concerned with enforcing religious observance, (I'm using the ten commandment read from the King James Bible because its a very common translation easy to recognise by people who dont read the bible regularly).
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Religious practice and ceremonial dogma - none of that is morality. The fifth commandment is not strictly religious but still entirely about authority:
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.This is not a moral precept, but it is perhaps a worthwhile value if your parents deserve it. However it is hardly something requiring devine inspiration. It is also a one way respect, it does not say that a parent has a responsibility to their child or must treat their child well. And given the many examples of children in the bible being mistreated by parents I would think that this commandments biased nature disqualifies it from being a good moral tenant.
That leaves us with only FIVE commandments that directly relate to how humans deal with other humans on equal terms rather dealing with religion and authority figures.
6. Thou shalt not kill.I will grant that killing, stealing, and being unfaithful are all things that should be included in any moral code.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house [wife, servants, ox, ass, etc].
So this is not a bad start... but it's just a start. For example, killing and harming are two different things, so these laws say you could beat people if you like. Threats and intimidation are still ok in the right circumstances. In fact domestic abuse, rape, child abuse, and slavery are all acceptable under the commandment of "thou shalt not kill".
Outright theft is condemned but not manipulation for gain. The bible, for instance, talks about slavery (even of other followers of god), and says that after 6 years you must set them free... however Exodus 21:4-6 actually includes a loophole, give the slave a wife and let him have children! That way he must leave his family or agree to be your slave forever. Not really theft, blackmail perhaps?
And for all those who say the example is poor because "slavery is wrong", please notice the commandments dont say that. The people who followed the commandments didn't think it either. The commandments failed to prevent it, even for a people who took them far more seriously than most people do now.
Adultery is an interesting one because it is so specific "sex with someone other than your spouse". This gives no guidance against sex outside of a relationship, or other commitment. It also does not include anything about the conditions under which marriage may be established or dissolved. Nothing to stop a young woman being given as bride against her will, nothing allow the dissolution of a marriage if one side becomes abusive.
The truth is that these commandments are pretty poor representations of these ideas, in fact they are all stated much better by the Five Precepts of Buddhism.
Not killing is replaced with not causing harm (to humans and animals), simply not stealing is replaced by not taking what is not given (covering theft but also slavery because the service is taken not given), adultery is broadened to sexual misconduct in general (not too much, no rape, dont cause offense with it, etc) and finally do not lie is replaced with avoiding false speech, which would include unwarranted gossip, and deliberate omissions, promises you intend to break...
So what little the ten commandments do say about morality, they don't say very well.
Of course it's worth pointing out that there is no commandment saying thou shalt not lie... You'll notice that commandment nine only talks about bearing "false witness". It is not a general commandment, they actually went to the trouble of narrowing it down to a specific case of law and left other lies un guarded. Although elsewhere in the bible this is corrected, you again would think a commandment from god would be a little clearer.
So we come to commandment ten. This is not an ethical or moral value, it's a thought crime. This commandment is all about suppressing the "yearn to possess what others may have", lets be generous and call it a commandment against jealousy. But it does not censure any action, only the desire. This is telling you what not to want. Do not desire what others have.
Why?
Thinking about what others have or at least what you do not have, has been one of the driving forces behind our development as a species, a culture, and as individuals. My desire to learn got me through school, my desire for a nice house got me on the property ladder, my desire for love helped me get up the courage to ask the most wonderful woman in the world if she would marry me (she said yes :).
Desire is not an evil itself - you only have to talk to christians to see that they all desire to do the right thing, they all desire to have gods love, and interestingly they all desire you to have it to.
This cannot in and of itself be wrong, and telling people not to want something others have is going to fail. Full stop end of discussion. The only way to live with number ten would be to not desire anything, not just anything worldly, but anything at all.
I'm not saying desire and jealousy cant and doesn't lead to other crimes, but I'm saying it also leads to some great ideas and great achievements. In fact most people in the US would claim that competition between peers is one of the things that drive innovation and contributes to the power of their economy.
A better statement would be "Feel no ill towards people who have what you do not", it's still a thought crime but at least this is one people can strive towards. It lets people keep their drive and ambition but not at the expense of others.
So now we come to the elephant in the room. When people talk about the commandments, they always seem to skirt around whats missing. The bible is full of horror stories and christianity/the new testament seems, at least in part, to be an attempt to correct or extend the moral/ethical framework into something more workable.
It's interesting to reflect that in the century or so prior to Jesus coming onto the scene, Stoic ethics were well travelled and established. There are a great deal of similarities between the "christian" ethics and that of the stoics. In fact the people who actually write the gospels lived mainly in lands dominated by stoic ethics. Some people have claimed that christianity was basically a revision of an existing belief system to be more in line with the accepted ethics of the time - replacing stoic fatalism with a God who would no longer be swayed by burned offerings...
However the ten commandments are still considered the core value
So what is missing from the ten commandments?
1. Thou shalt not keep slavesThese are basic and obvious to anyone. and none of them are contradictory to the ten commandments. The last one however is a problem for christians, because the basis of their faith is that we are all guilty for the sins of our fathers and mothers all the way back to Adam and Eve. We are also to be forgiven for these sins we did not participate in, by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus.
2. Thou shalt not beat children
3. Thou shalt allow that when children come of age they may leave their parents house without debt of any kind
4. Thou shalt respect women and men equally
5. Thou shalt not let another suffer for any sins but their own
I cannot accept that.
I will not punish someone for something they did not do. I will not blame a child for the crime of their parent, I will not send a man to prison for the crime of his brother, and I will not allow someone else to suffer for my mistakes. It is unjust by definition, and even if it is allowed by law, to actually accept such a generous offer is a morally bankrupt act.
So I say again: No.
The ten commandments are not enough, they are poorly phrased, they contain omissions, they are full of dogma and ceremony, they are biased towards authority and most importantly... they failed. The people god gave his commandments to were not good by todays standards, they were not moral, or kind, or generous. They were cruel, they kept slaves, and they sacrificed animals, using the blood of others to wash their hands clean of sin.
Only someone who has never considered the question of how to improve them would think it could not easily be done.
Friday, 19 October 2012
Campaign for Civility
In one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in recent history, thousands and thousands of muslims have protested outside Googles UK HQ to get a video removed because they found it "insulting" to their faith.
Reports (1, 2, 3) say over ten thousand muslims turned up to pressure google into taking down an anti islamic video called "The Innocence of Muslims" from YouTube, and organisers say the protests will continue around the globe until they get what they want.
The protestors carried placards with phrases like: - "This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed", "Prophet Muhammad is the father of civil liberties", "Google supports terrorism", "How dare you insult the blessed prophet", "Freedom of Speech = Hatred of Muslims?" and "Muslims campaign for global civility".
A lawyer called Sheikh Siddiqui, wants christian, catholic, jewish, trade unions, and even conservatives groups to encourage their ranks to join his "campaign for civility".
This protect group is trying to co-opt the term "civility", claiming that it is not civil to attack actions and quotes attributed to the prophet Mohammed. They say the video is so insulting that it is "emotional terrorism".
No-one, NO-ONE, whose personal belief system includes eternal hell for rejecting the claims of that faith can EVER claim the moral high ground on emotional coercion.
They claim it is not civil to attack the character of Muhammad (whose very existence is still a matter of historical debate), but somehow, it is acceptable to hold the view that people who disagree, people who disbelief are of such low character that they are destined to spend eternity in Jahannam (hell)? And to publish that view in a book they claim to be the true and beautiful word of god?
The islamic apologetic argument that Christians, Catholics, and Jews might be saved because they seek god only through the wrong path does little to hide the fact that all sects of Islam agree the Qur'an says those who reject the islamic faith are irredeemable and damned.
That is not polite.
That cannot be considered good "manners" as they should be taught.
It IS insulting
It IS threatening.
... and I'm only talking about hell here, I'm ignoring the verses on the reduced value of women, and the calls to actually harm or even kill unbelievers.
Putting the more "flexible" interpretations of moderate muslims, claims of historical context, etc, all aside for a moment: These claims remain part of their core religious dogma, written in their holy book. The insult is not only allowed but enshrined as the most beautiful of all "poetry".
For ANY group to pressure a company or government to provide special dispensation to that group and censor someones freedom of expression (no matter what you think of the quality or appropriateness of the video) while maintaining a core belief that insulting should be seen for the intolerable double standard it represents.
I reject Islam and Muhammad.
I ALSO reject the "The Innocence of Muslims" as crude and unworthy biased collection of misquotes and mixed contexts.
However, if I am to support the right of people of faith to hold views about myself and others who reject faith as deserving of infinite suffering I MUST reject utterly any attempt by those people of faith to stifle the expression of views that challenge contradict or even insult faith, it's articles, characters, and dogma.
People of Islam, please... Use the same freedom those protestors are attacking... Counter the video, refute the message, correct the perception, but dont, just please dont, try to bury it under a claim of "civility" that you simply cannot defend.
There are several reasons why that video might be banned not least of which is that the actors were lied to about what they were making, but "civility" is not one if them.
Reports (1, 2, 3) say over ten thousand muslims turned up to pressure google into taking down an anti islamic video called "The Innocence of Muslims" from YouTube, and organisers say the protests will continue around the globe until they get what they want.
The protestors carried placards with phrases like: - "This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed", "Prophet Muhammad is the father of civil liberties", "Google supports terrorism", "How dare you insult the blessed prophet", "Freedom of Speech = Hatred of Muslims?" and "Muslims campaign for global civility".
A lawyer called Sheikh Siddiqui, wants christian, catholic, jewish, trade unions, and even conservatives groups to encourage their ranks to join his "campaign for civility".
This protect group is trying to co-opt the term "civility", claiming that it is not civil to attack actions and quotes attributed to the prophet Mohammed. They say the video is so insulting that it is "emotional terrorism".
No-one, NO-ONE, whose personal belief system includes eternal hell for rejecting the claims of that faith can EVER claim the moral high ground on emotional coercion.
They claim it is not civil to attack the character of Muhammad (whose very existence is still a matter of historical debate), but somehow, it is acceptable to hold the view that people who disagree, people who disbelief are of such low character that they are destined to spend eternity in Jahannam (hell)? And to publish that view in a book they claim to be the true and beautiful word of god?
The islamic apologetic argument that Christians, Catholics, and Jews might be saved because they seek god only through the wrong path does little to hide the fact that all sects of Islam agree the Qur'an says those who reject the islamic faith are irredeemable and damned.
And among them there is he who says: Allow me and do not try me. Surely into trial have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers. Qur'an 9:49
Do they not know that whoever acts in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, he shall surely have the fire of hell to abide in it? Qur'an 9:63
Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment. Qur'an 9:68That is not civil.
That is not polite.
That cannot be considered good "manners" as they should be taught.
It IS insulting
It IS threatening.
... and I'm only talking about hell here, I'm ignoring the verses on the reduced value of women, and the calls to actually harm or even kill unbelievers.
Putting the more "flexible" interpretations of moderate muslims, claims of historical context, etc, all aside for a moment: These claims remain part of their core religious dogma, written in their holy book. The insult is not only allowed but enshrined as the most beautiful of all "poetry".
For ANY group to pressure a company or government to provide special dispensation to that group and censor someones freedom of expression (no matter what you think of the quality or appropriateness of the video) while maintaining a core belief that insulting should be seen for the intolerable double standard it represents.
I reject Islam and Muhammad.
I ALSO reject the "The Innocence of Muslims" as crude and unworthy biased collection of misquotes and mixed contexts.
However, if I am to support the right of people of faith to hold views about myself and others who reject faith as deserving of infinite suffering I MUST reject utterly any attempt by those people of faith to stifle the expression of views that challenge contradict or even insult faith, it's articles, characters, and dogma.
People of Islam, please... Use the same freedom those protestors are attacking... Counter the video, refute the message, correct the perception, but dont, just please dont, try to bury it under a claim of "civility" that you simply cannot defend.
There are several reasons why that video might be banned not least of which is that the actors were lied to about what they were making, but "civility" is not one if them.
Friday, 28 September 2012
The bible is a finite state machine.
The other day I was watching the movie "Collision" featuring debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson (watch it, it's awesome).
One of the topics debated was that of morality.
Most arguments or debates on morality between christians and atheists come down to the question of where morality comes from.
In the debate, the christians claim was that god is the source of objective morality and that such morality is communicated through the bible.
The idea of an objective morality is hard to support, because each human is (by definition) their own subject, and any objective morality interpreted by a subjective human must result in a subjective application.
This is not to say that the result of an objective moral judgment and subjective moral judgement must necessarily be different. However the deistic purity of the objective morality claimed by christians is subject to subjective distortion via the many and varied humans performing the interpretation.
The atheists claim in the debate was that morality is innate, either as a result of evolutionary imperatives or from an intellectual basis (such as enlightened self interest).
(please excuse my gross simplification of the arguments for the purposes of this post)
I'm going to avoid a deep discussion of the sources for human morality for another (much longer) post.
What neither side seemed to raise in the debates, was the limitations of the bible as a tool for determining morality. Specifically that the bible is a finite state machine.
By finite state machine, I mean that there are a limited number of parables, morality plays and direct behavioural edicts in the bible, all of which were written between 1.8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.
So it would be reasonable (read necessary) to expect that not every possible modern question of morality is dealt with in those pages.
Therefore in such situations where a clear and definitive moral ruling is not supplied, or where multiple conflicting moral laws seem to apply, christians must use their best judgment to determine how to interpret the bible.
Best judgement using their intellect and innate morality, any such interpretation made by a christian must eventually rely on those faculties.
Thus the arbiter of any moral ambiguity in the bible for a christian is same as the starting morality for an atheist.
I'm not saying that there is no morality in the bible - I think the bible contains great morality as well as great immorality. What I am saying is that human morality is useful without the bible but the bible is not useful without human morality. The same can be said of any finite text claiming to be the laws of god. In the end all moral decisions are human ones.
One of the topics debated was that of morality.
Most arguments or debates on morality between christians and atheists come down to the question of where morality comes from.
In the debate, the christians claim was that god is the source of objective morality and that such morality is communicated through the bible.
The idea of an objective morality is hard to support, because each human is (by definition) their own subject, and any objective morality interpreted by a subjective human must result in a subjective application.
Objective + Subjective = Subjective
This is not to say that the result of an objective moral judgment and subjective moral judgement must necessarily be different. However the deistic purity of the objective morality claimed by christians is subject to subjective distortion via the many and varied humans performing the interpretation.
The atheists claim in the debate was that morality is innate, either as a result of evolutionary imperatives or from an intellectual basis (such as enlightened self interest).
(please excuse my gross simplification of the arguments for the purposes of this post)
I'm going to avoid a deep discussion of the sources for human morality for another (much longer) post.
What neither side seemed to raise in the debates, was the limitations of the bible as a tool for determining morality. Specifically that the bible is a finite state machine.
By finite state machine, I mean that there are a limited number of parables, morality plays and direct behavioural edicts in the bible, all of which were written between 1.8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.
So it would be reasonable (read necessary) to expect that not every possible modern question of morality is dealt with in those pages.
Therefore in such situations where a clear and definitive moral ruling is not supplied, or where multiple conflicting moral laws seem to apply, christians must use their best judgment to determine how to interpret the bible.
Best judgement using their intellect and innate morality, any such interpretation made by a christian must eventually rely on those faculties.
Thus the arbiter of any moral ambiguity in the bible for a christian is same as the starting morality for an atheist.
I'm not saying that there is no morality in the bible - I think the bible contains great morality as well as great immorality. What I am saying is that human morality is useful without the bible but the bible is not useful without human morality. The same can be said of any finite text claiming to be the laws of god. In the end all moral decisions are human ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)