Comments on A Socket for My Brain: Anarchy and Chance - Part 1, The House of Cards

On a less emotional note, I think it's important t...

2008-08-18T17:56:00.000+08:00

On a less emotional note, I think it's important to point out that it is quite possible to live morally in a time where slave-ownership is the norm, because slavery as a political term is different from the notion of treating a person as a slave. Sadly, man has never needed the permission of his government to mistreat and abuse his fellow man. He still does it now, decades after his government ceased to permit him. You can pay your employees, honor their legal rights, and still essentially enslave them if you are clever and ruthless enough.

On the other hand, one can own what his society calls a slave without treating him as a slave. The fact that the slave does not get to have civil rights may be unfortunate, yet while civil rights are political inventions used by the state to protect its citizens (a term that did not apply to slaves), there will always be the objective moral obligation to respect the dignity of all human beings. That, at least, was what devout Christian slave-owners tried to do. The fact that many of them freed their slaves eventually is just further evidence that they did not see the slaves as any different from them, and are therefore free from guilt.

There is a moral difference between a person who sees slaves (or, in modern times, employees) as nothing but fancy commercial machinery, and a person who has a reasonable need for workers and who just so happened to be unable find any amongst his rich, fat and free neighbors.

In the end, the Church lived in a world that thought slavery was a necessity, but the Church did not have to change *any* of her doctrines to exist in a world without slavery, while her fickle enemies are always, always changing their beliefs, depending on their whims and fads. And I think that is the end of the matter.

"Civilization during the time of Christ encouraged...

2008-08-18T11:56:00.000+08:00

"Civilization during the time of Christ encouraged slavery. He never spoke out against it."

You seem to be confused as to what a slave actually is in the Jewish society of Christ's time. Maybe you've equated the unethical notion of "slaves as inhuman property" with the notion of a Jewish slave. Also, your claim that only Protestantism and atheist humanism condemned slavery is laughable at best. Here's something that might enlighten you.

Of course, if you really wanted to extend your argument further, you should have mentioned that Christianity has existed throughout the eras where unjust wars, adultery, nepotism, simony, misogyny, despotism AND slavery were seen as common social norms. You should have shown the various examples of Christians, popes, bishops, clergy, and even Saints falling for such social ills. Me, I'll be content to remember the flaws and sins of the first pope. The fact remains that none of these things contradict the doctrines of sin, repentance, and final judgment. On the contrary, the sins of mankind give evidence to the doctrine of Original Sin and need for Divine Judgement, for sinners cannot judge fellow sinners.

Can't you see? Pointing out the flaws of Christians does not help your case at all! You talk about the horrors of slavery in "unenlightened" times. Well then, what can your atheism do to bring justice to the slaves who are long dead? What can your humanism say against slave-owners who happily died wealthy because of crimes they did with impunity? Absolutely nothing! What can your atheism say to the other great historical crimes made by both atheists and believers? What can it do for the victims of the Holocaust, and the victims of Nagasaki? Absolutely nothing. And so you look the other way and say such things as this to make yourself feel comfortable:

"Now we find the very notion of ownership of another person repugnant...not because the Church told us to."

Why exactly do we find it repugnant? Try thinking this through: Where did the so-called humanists get their doctrine of "equality of all men"? Which institution first defended the dignity of *all* mankind, whatever the political environment may be, whatever race or caste they may belong to? Which institution continues to defend the dignity of all mankind, whether born or unborn, whether strong and useful or senile, fragile, or comatose?

Certainly not atheism.

"Can't I be perfectly reasonable doing something I...

2008-08-18T10:33:00.000+08:00

"Can't I be perfectly reasonable doing something I like doing?..."

Because when talking about logic, "I like doing something" (what I call argument from pleasure) is not a valid sole justification for doing something, firstly because pleasure is just a biochemical process, meaning we can be made to find pleasure in anything (see: sadomasochism, hedonism, homicidal mania, various forms of sexual depravities, etc.). As Christian philosophers would say, man's desires can become disordered. Just because you like being moral doesn't make morality justifiable, especially not under your world view where "conscience" is just another human invention.

Secondly, what's the point, really, of saying that you do things because you like doing them? I do what I like, it's just that what I like includes being orthodox. Why brag this truism as if "the tendency to do things one likes" is the ultimate manifestation of an evolved being? Even rats do what they like, you know.

"...Or doing something that is beneficial to society?"

What is your rationale for being so loyal to society? Why is someone like you logically superior to someone who wants to blow society to bits?

So the only "justifiable reason" for you is dong w...

2008-08-18T08:29:00.000+08:00

So the only "justifiable reason" for you is dong what god tells you to? Can't I be perfectly reasonable doing something I like doing? Or doing something that is beneficial to society? Why must the only impetus be "to dowhat god wants?"

Civilization during the time of Christ encouraged slavery. He never spoke out against it. St. Paul even encouraged it backhandedly by saying "respect each other." Now we find the very notion of ownership of another person repugnant.

If morality did come from god, he would've condemned slavery right there. But he didn't. It took humanist thinkers (and some protestants) to do that.

Today everyone condemns slavery and it's not because the church told them to.

In your worldview, the hypothetical future society...

2008-08-13T11:11:00.000+08:00

In your worldview, the hypothetical future society that accepts and allows murder would not be morally wrong. There will be nothing to judge them against, and all their atrocities will never be called to justice, because they will deny that what they are doing are even atrocities, and there is no God, no Final Judgement for them to face.

In other words, your worldview is nothing but moral despair, and as your worldview cannot be proven, then I will happily stay away from it.

And if you think a person who willingly acts upon things for no justifiable reason (e.g. living a lie) can somehow be rational, then I'll be happy to agree to disagree. :)

It is curious to see, though, how one could utterly hate a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale so much that he'd willingly justify murderous societies and even lie to himself, if that meant finally ridding himself of the fairy tale.

Ah, a person is wrong (killing, stealing, whatever...

2008-08-13T09:56:00.000+08:00

Ah, a person is wrong (killing, stealing, whatever) because the general consensus says it is wrong. That may change a thousand years from now, but the fact that it holds true today makes it so.

It's only "irrational" to you because of your claim that "one important component of rationality is acting upon things that you actually believe in."

But that's not necessarily so. In fact, you're the only person I've encountered who makes this argument.

I make certain assumptions (that we invent morality) and work on an ethical system based on that. It may not be an absolute "truth" but then again, nothing is.

"All morality is invented, even yours."Nah, some m...

2008-08-10T17:25:00.000+08:00

"All morality is invented, even yours."

Nah, some morality is assumed on principle, or developed logically from assumed principles (e.g. God). That sort of morality is rational. An irrational morality is, for example, one that is taken for granted to be a myth, and is used fully acknowledging that it is a myth. Because one important component of rationality is acting upon things that you actually believe in.

Thing is, the principles that lead to a materialist universe (Hume's Law, etc.) cannot lead to any sort of morality that is not a myth.

Let us put it another way. To say "Killing is wrong because I believe human life is sacred" is totally rational; it flows logically and reasonably from an assumption that the person holds as true (i.e. doctrine).

But to say "I don't hold anything sacred, and I believe we are just blobs of insignificant matter, but I choose to promote the idea that killing is wrong" is irrational because the principles do not match the morality: if you hold yourself to be an insignificant blob of matter, why is a person wrong if he murdered you? Why should you not be killed, other than because your insignificant sentiments object to you being killed?

I am not saying that you should not follow your sentiments, or that you ought to promote the freedom of imprisoned homicidal maniacs; all I'm saying is sentimentality is different from rationality, and in a universe where morality is just invented, there is no philosophical argument against killers, especially those who don't get caught.

I cannot complain much, though. It's fortunate that most atheists are sentimentalists. We've had enough Nietzschean ubermenchen running around during the past world wars. And even though there are some atheists who see nothing wrong with the concept of The Joker, it is good that most of them aren't adventurous enough to try becoming one.

Why is inventing morality irrational? All morality...

2008-08-10T09:58:00.000+08:00

Why is inventing morality irrational? All morality is invented, even yours.

Your first point is moot, because I am not arguing...

2008-08-10T08:29:00.000+08:00

Your first point is moot, because I am not arguing that *all* atheists are nihilists. My primary thesis is that the only rational kind of atheism is one that does not invent any sort of morality where (in an atheistic viewpoint) none exist objectively. A rational atheist is an amoral one. Fortunately, very few atheists are rational ones. Many of them today are people who, having received a certain morality from a metaphysics-loving society (not necessarily a Christian one), take morality for granted even after they reject the other "myths" their society believes in.

Heh, of course I know that Pratchett is atheist. W...

2008-08-10T08:20:00.000+08:00

Heh, of course I know that Pratchett is atheist. Why do you think I keep on making fun of Death's supposed wisdom? Because it's the kind of irrationality that certain atheists (not all) actually fall for. ;-)

First point: You're conflating atheism with nihili...

2008-08-09T17:23:00.000+08:00

First point: You're conflating atheism with nihilism. While one may lead to the other, it doesn't really follow. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, no more no less.

Second: You assume the existence of a god. But if god didn't exist or if he isn't the Christian god, then you're actually just living under a moral code that someone else made.

I've made the house of cards argument, too. The only difference is that my house of cards is built on what I think of and is real to me (cogito ergo sum); your house of cards is built on the assumption that there exists a lawgiver that cares what we do.

Basically what you're saying is that meaning can only come from a god that tells us that how we should live. I'm saying that meaning is something we create for ourselves.

The big lie? Sure. We can call it that. There's no need to invent a god to give us the illusion of objective morality. AS I see it, I'm living one lie less.

Oh, and PTerry is an atheist, too.