Geology Professor: Why Religious Believers...

[Junghalli]

Speaking of his attitudes about atheists, from his essay on magic:

In fact, there's precious little atheism that doesn't resort to some kind of consolatory religion, minus God. If there is absolutely no afterlife, then a second after you die, it won't matter to you whether you lived in luxury or grinding poverty, freedom or a concentration camp. When the last person who knew you dies and the last record of your existence disappears, it won't matter at all what your life was like. Most atheists, pressed on this point, will say that it "still matters," as if there's some kind of Cosmic Consciousness out there that keeps score even if you're not there to remember it. If there's no judgment or arbiter of values, then every value statement is, at bottom, merely an opinion. Ultimately, Elvis on black velvet is as valid a work of art as anything by Picasso or Rembrandt. It is perfectly possible to live a long and full life exploiting others and die happy. Few atheists have the courage to face this issue squarely; most fall back on the ethics of Voltaire or Bertrand Russell (in other words, arguments from authority), the common consensus of society, the greatest good for the greatest number, and so on. But really, why should I care about the greatest good for others if I can increase my own good at the expense of others? In fact the most coldly rational strategy is to encourage everyone else to act ethically while I ally myself with like-minded people to exploit them.

Yes, and...?

Sure, suffering is bad is ultimately "an opinion". It also reflects the sort of society I'd rather live in. What would he rather have us do? Moan at the futility of it all? Become little Palpatines?

Seriously, as a critique of atheist morality this is completely useless. Simply pointing out that the universe is amoral is philosophically useless, as you require some kind of value system to function. Even the sociopathic life strategy he suggests is still a value system based on a subjective principle (what's good for me is good). One wonders what exactly he means by "facing this issue squarely", as attempting to base a philosophy of the inherent subjectivity of moral imperatives is in the same family of useless masturbation as solipcism and absolute moral relativism. Hey, didn't he have a long rant against moral relativism before?

It's almost like the whole "point" is nothing but an attempt to stroke off his ego and make himself look smart by pointing out the obvious as if it's something totally profound that only occurs to really smart people like him.

And if he wants a "real" (selfish) reason not to act like a sociopath, how about this: most of us aren't sociopaths and don't like them. In fact that's probably why they're rare: there was strong Darwinistic pressure against those traits in early hominid societies. If he tries to live according to that sociopathic philosophy then it's very much in the interests of us non-sociopaths to try and stop him, and indeed a very basic instinct seems to cry out to normal people that sociopaths are a natural enemy (again probably because of Darwinistic selection in early hominids: sociopaths are likely to be drains on and dangers to the group, so an instinct to kill or ostracise them makes sense). Of course, he can try to hide his sociopathic tendencies, but if that forces him to live the life of a non-sociopath what does it matter? Good acts as defined by utilitarian humanism are good, it doesn't matter if you do them because you want to be a good person or because you don't want everyone around you to realize how profoundly antisocial your true thought processes and goals are*.

What he offers at the end is

If consolatory religion is magic, and nominal religion is magic, what's left? How about serious religion, where you try seriously to find out what the universe is actually like, whether there is a God or not, what ethical demands are binding on you, and then try to shape your belief and conduct accordingly?

Um, yeah, that's what I've been doing, and it's what led me to atheism in the first place. Really, the fact that "what's left" when he eliminated magic is "seriously religion" makes me wonder again about whether he's actually as non-partisan as he tries to present himself as (of course, he could just be bad with definitions).

*Actually, considering how fundamentally selfish I suspect most humans are (I know I am, if I am honest with myself), I wonder if most of the human race doesn't do this to an extent. If I'm perfectly honest with myself I know one of my main motivators to act ethically is not to look like a bad person to others. But I won't derail this topic into a discussion of whether and to what extent most of the human race may consist of sociopaths in denial, acting ethically in no small part so the people around them don't notice how selfish they really are.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, he makes once again the simple error: all people do not turn into sociopaths the moment there's no religion, since they have been already conditioned by the society, you know, all that "socialization" thing.

Of course, one is free to be a sociopath, but as an enemy of common good, he is most likely to be destroyed by the society sooner or later. What of failure to punish the guilty? Perhaps; after all, human society is not a perfect arbiter, and humanity is not a karmic justice force... but it's indefinetely better than wishful thinking.

Once again it comes down to humanity doing 100% of acts to prevent evil and sociopathy, and religious fictional deities doing zero. Religious deities serve as stopgap consolation, wishful thinking to "explain" the inability of humanity to perfectly prevent evil and exert "justice".

[Samuel]

Yeah, he makes once again the simple error: all people do not turn into sociopaths the moment there's no religion, since they have been already conditioned by the society, you know, all that "socialization" thing.

Of course, one is free to be a sociopath, but as an enemy of common good, he is most likely to be destroyed by the society sooner or later. What of failure to punish the guilty? Perhaps; after all, human society is not a perfect arbiter, and humanity is not a karmic justice force... but it's indefinetely better than wishful thinking.

Once again it comes down to humanity doing 100% of acts to prevent evil and sociopathy, and religious fictional deities doing zero. Religious deities serve as stopgap consolation, wishful thinking to "explain" the inability of humanity to perfectly prevent evil and exert "justice".

You just like saying socialism.

Even complete sociopaths manage to work out agreements- after all, they can't be awake all the time.Which means you need to be able to trust other people. And from such humble beginnings do great things grow...

[PeZook]

There are degrees of empathy and capability for socialization: a real sociopath is a rare thing (one in a hundred, IIRC) and they're usually far worse than "I hate this guy, but i'll act nice so as not to seem like an asshole".

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, the fact that real sociopaths are rather rare - and moreover, that religion is in no way preventing a person from strong sociopathy - is an important indication that the whole logical construct "no religion = sociopathy" is extreme bunk.

The idea is not new however; quite a few proponents of religion expressed the view that if not for "ultimate judgement", people would suddenly start commiting evil and sociopathic acts en masse. I really wonder if this is a description of self; after all, if you subscribe to that logic, you must think it applies to you, and if not for the idea of "God", you'd go and exploit and screw other people for your own good.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Probably the biggest hole in his reasoning is that he totally fails to recognize that people typically prefer to leave behind a positive legacy, so that while they are alive actions to promote this will please them regardless of their beliefs, or lack thereof, on the afterlife. In fact it could easily, and again with equal validity since he never engages in anything more complex than a sophistic word game, be argued that belief in the afterlife diminishes the impulse to do good. Piles of evidence for this can be cited, from the principles of Catholicism (final confession and last rites from a priest will get me into heaven, no matter the evil I do), the sola fide of Protestant Christianity (as long as I believe in Jesus as my savior I will get into heaven, no matter the evil I do), to the suicide pacts of radical Islam (the evil that I do will get me into heaven).

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Why did he say that religious people believing that the punishment/reward afterlife is necessary for morality is a myth when he himself says that without a punishment/reward afterlife, morality is meaningless?

[Knife]

Why did he say that religious people believing that the punishment/reward afterlife is necessary for morality is a myth when he himself says that without a punishment/reward afterlife, morality is meaningless?

Cause he's a douche who at some point will believe in Judeo Christian believe either by fault or by culture. His whole essay reeks of it, I don't believe yet I believe.

[Junghalli]

I agree with the guy who said he's not bad when he's attacking idiots, because it's not really all that hard to attack idiots decently, but against any kind of serious opposition his page is full of all sorts of bad logic and more than a little hypocrisy. Like how he continuously attacks people who don't bother to research the subjects they discuss but then he gives stupid generalizations about humanism like it says all sex is good (including rape? pederasty?). Or this:

"Simplistic"

Hard on the heels of "blaming the victim" as a beacon of specious thinking is "simplistic." The reasoning is wonderful: an idea that explains the data simply and economically is wrong for that very reason, and the better the idea explains the data, the greater the evidence that it's wrong. All ideas of any value are simplifications; the problem with oversimplifications is not that they're simple, but that they're wrong.

Myth: Religion is rigid and doesn't recognize that right and wrong depend on context, the way modern thinkers do.
Reality: Actually, it's the other way around. Religion distinguishes between murder, war, and capital punishment. It's the modern thinker who says "all taking of human life is wrong." Religion distinguishes between marital sex and adultery. It's the modern thinker who says "all sex is right."

Ironically, it is modern thinkers who are simplistic. Ask a traditional theologian whether killing is wrong or whether it is just that someone should be poor, and his first response will be "what are the circumstances?" It's the modern thinker who makes blanket simplistic statements like "killing is wrong" or "poverty is wrong."

He (quite sensibly) attacks the reverse Occams Razor approach as idiotic, but he sure sounds to me like he's implying Biblical morality is superior simply because it's more complex. I would argue the simplicity of modern ethics that he seems to disdain is actually a very good thing. A person who believes all killing is fundamentally wrong is more likely to only kill when absolutely necessary; recognizing an ethically neutral form of killing ("slaying") I think is dangerous because it makes killing more ethically palatable. A person who's response to "is poverty wrong" is to say "yes" is more likely to try to alleviate poverty wherever he finds it than somebody who's response is "under the right circumstances, no it's perfectly alright for people to be forced to live in shit."

And his sniping at gay rights annoys me. I get the feeling he's exactly the sort of person who'd cheerfully vote for Prop 8 and then still think of himself as a perfectly tolerant, open-minded, civilized guy because he's not like those guys who believe in creationism and think blacks are mud people. Admittedly, it's only a gut feeling, but every use of the word gay or homosexuality I've seen from him is in a context that sets off all my closet bigot alarms.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[url=whttp://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/10DumRel.htm]This is even worse[/url], and to think I started this thread as a thought experiment and with the intention of being his devil's advocate. When any idea is politically distasteful or even often popularly associated (poisoning the well) with groups he finds politically distasteful, he treats them with infantile name-calling.

[Junghalli]

Heh, hate to break it to this guy, but unbelief really is more rational and scientific than religious belief. You see, it's to do with these things called Occam's Razor and parsimony...

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah but you see, "unproven" is not the same as "disproven"! That's his grand argument for religion. The end. If you can make sense of that... I can't. I really can't. Especially from someone who is a scientist.

[Junghalli]

I love his stance on unpopular belief systems.

So what do you want, a medal? If you're going to take a stance that runs counter to the rest of society, at least have the common sense to figure out you will encounter opposition, and have the courage and integrity to accept it.

I'm reminded of the Goths that shot up Columbine High School. Let's see here... you reject the values of society, you wear styles and adopt mannerisms that manifest your rejection of everyone else, then you're hurt, angry and offended when other people reject you?

Of course, if your beliefs really impose a crushing burden, you might even examine the possibility they could be wrong? Naahh.

Remember guys, if you refuse to conform you have no right to complain about people treating you like shit because of it. It's your own fault and you should accept it as the price you pay for not being like everyone else.

And if your beliefs are a burden, maybe you need to examine if they're wrong? Not that there's anything wrong with subjecting your beliefs to critical scrutiny, but I smell an implied appeal to popularity fallacy.

[Rye]

This isn't quite fair to Abrahamic religion in itself, since in fact eternal punishment is never explicitly described in either the Jewish or Christian scriptural tradition. Hell in the fire and brimstone sense simply does not exist in Judaism, and the closest the New Testament ever gets to it is calling Hell a fire that is never quenched, and the references to Hell in Revelations heavily imply that the "lake of fire" is a place of final annihilation rather than eternal suffering.

This is wrong. See Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man; the NT varies on the point between eternal punishment/torture (wailing, gnashing of teeth, "where their worm dieth not" etc) and annihilationism depending on the author. There are extrabiblical examples of such views like the Book of Enoch that lends credence to the eternal torment interpretation.

Anyway, I would point this guy to my prior posts about self-defined agnostics if I thought he could understand them.

[Durandal]

I can summarize that whole article as follows.

Person 1: "The sky is purple!"
Person 2: "No, the sky is blue!"

And the author says, "Hey guys, can't you go into a discussion realizing that you can both be wrong?"

Wow, what brilliant insight. Wherever would we be as a society without such intellectual cowardice?

[Battlehymn Republic]

His 9/11 truth/psuedoscience debunking articles are quite good.