Breivik: “According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 25, 2011

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Norway Killer Cultural Christian, Practical Darwinian” (July 24, 2011), we learn from Creation-Evolution Headlines a bit of the background to World News Daily’s bringing the Darwinian leanings of the Norway killer to light:

WND first started challenging the depictions of Breivik as a Christian on the 23rd. Then on the 24th, WND posted the entire Breivik manifesto and described him as a Darwinian, not a ‘Christian’ in the usual sense of someone who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God and submits to Him as Lord and Savior.

For example,

Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto:

While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “Marriage is not a ‘conspiracy to oppress women’, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

Here’s Uncommon Descent’s story on Breivik and other Darwin-motivated gunmen.

Comments

Bornagain77,
Doveton, The ‘goalpost’ is your statement; ‘there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.’ Hence once again, why does temptation even exist if there is indeed nothing to suggest that sin was enjoyable???,,,
Again, you're writing in generalities. How many people (if any) are tempted to commit murder? Do you really think that anyone finds murder enjoyable? Are some folks tempted to cheat on their spouses? No question. But does it then follow that cheating is enjoyable? No, it doesn't follow. There are a number of reasons spouses cheat, and few of them are based solely on enjoyment.
Sure after addiction has rendered its ugly head it is no longer enjoyable, which is where you try to draw the line in your conclusion, but your statement is in fact this: ‘there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.’ You can stand by your statement all you want but that does not make your statement any less false than when you first stated it no matter how you rationalize it away with appeal to devastated lives ‘after the fact’.
I'll tell you what - I will happily retract/correct the statement if you can point to some evidence that being bad is actually enjoyable.
Moreover, as a atheist, you are really treading thin ice to even say there is a distinction between good and evil in the first place for you cannot even justify morality in your incoherent worldview:
Just an aside, I'm not an atheist - more of an agnostic myself. But that I suppose is neither here nor there. However, it is quite easy for an atheist (or an agnostic like me) to make a distinction between good an evil: Good is anything promotes the well-being of individuals and society Evil is anything that promotes the distress and/or destruction of individuals and society. Such is easily justified too - it is practical to adopt such a perspective for one's own well-being.Doveton_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Doveton, The 'goalpost' is your statement; 'there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.’ Hence once again, why does temptation even exist if there is indeed nothing to suggest that sin was enjoyable???,,, Sure after addiction has rendered its ugly head it is no longer enjoyable, which is where you try to draw the line in your conclusion, but your statement is in fact this: 'there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.' You can stand by your statement all you want but that does not make your statement any less false than when you first stated it no matter how you rationalize it away with appeal to devastated lives 'after the fact'. Moreover, as a atheist, you are really treading thin ice to even say there is a distinction between good and evil in the first place for you cannot even justify morality in your incoherent worldview: Cruel Logic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnIbornagain77_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77,
Doveton, despite your shallow ‘dream-world’ rationalizations to the contrary; The brute reality of the fact is that there are millions and millions of people who are addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, etc.. etc.. and whose lives have been devastated by such addictions, indeed many millions have directly died from such addictions, people who were deceived into being addicted solely because they thought, contrary to warnings they received as they were growing up,,, they thought that ‘being bad’ would be enjoyable;,, But on the flip side of that ‘the truth’ has set millions upon millions free from the deceptiveness and temptations of sin;
All you are doing here is moving the goal posts. The point of mine you addressed was: there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.’ The vast majority of addicts will tell you that they do not enjoy the substance of their addiction. Having counseled addicts, I found this to be a nearly a universal claim. In fact, one of the reasons that folks become addicted to a substance (be it sex, drugs, shopping, games, money, alcohol, cigarettes, etc) is because they have a personality/physiology that builds up a strong resistance to the dopamine response very quickly, requiring stronger and more frequent exposure to get any sort of enjoyment. In most cases, the addiction leads to a repetitive act of feeding the physiological/psychological dependence without any enjoyment at all. It's a very nasty state to get to.
‘Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.’
Indeed - thank you for supporting my point for me. Note that Jesus doesn't say that everyone who sins becomes a slave to the enjoyment. Nope - just the act itself. So I stand by my statement - there's nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.Doveton_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Morning Chris,
I’m sure you’ll be the first to admit that building your sense of morality around a statement like: “I guess because to me, leading a good, selfless life just makes me happier than leading a not-so-good, selfish life.” is entirely subjective. Consequently, you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to argue with somebody who makes the statement that: “I guess because to me, leading a good, selfless life just makes me unhappier than leading a not-so-good, selfish life.”
I have plenty of grounds to argue against the latter - societal grounds, personal safety grounds, community safety grounds, economic grounds, personal property grounds...the list goes on. You seem to think that because a viewpoint is subjective in one area it is subjective in all areas or at least the one area subjectivity negates any reasonable approach to any other area of evaluation. That's a rather fallacious generalization. Clearly there are objective criteria for deeming some behaviors problematic (cheers River!) and finding that regardless of the perfectly acceptable personal view that behaving good makes one feel bad (and thus being bad is preferential for such a person), acting on the desire can still objectively be found inappropriate.
Regarding any theists who “believe that they will be rewarded solely for their beliefs; that their behavior matters not one wit”: they are just wrong, simple as that.
I'm sure you believe that, but it doesn't change the validity of the point. You are certainly in no position of theistic authority to declare what beliefs are true or not, so your opinion on such is rather moot. The claim is really nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy. I'll take your claim for what it's worth.
But don’t let theological matters get in the way of atheistic morality: after all, if the atheistic worldview is true then ALL theology is worthless anyway. Bringing it up is frankly an admission that atheistic morality is weak and ineffective… (but you draw comfort from the fact that you believe theistic morality to be equally weak and ineffective so somehow that makes it okay for you).
It seems you've missed my point. I didn't note the theistic view of "belief not works" to prop up an atheistic view; on the contrary - I noted it to point out that those who feel good being bad can rationalize that good feeling no matter whether they are theistic or atheistic. Of course, it doesn't make the atheistic view weak at all since such a view stands by itself no matter what theists rationalize.
And if you don’t think that being bad is enjoyable, if you don’t understand anything about “temptation” (as BA77 rightly points out) then you are also bringing too much yang to this conversation and not enough yin.
The problem with the argument, from my perspective, is that so far folks have been discussing the concept in far too general a set of terms. What is this "bad" you speak of specifically? Should an atheist feel equally good about having a one-night stand and murdering someone? Lying about liking his or her in-laws to spare a rift and setting up a Ponzi scheme? I personally don't enjoy being bad in any area, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. But I do find it odd that I don't know a lot of bad people (as determined by most standards) unless you include the rejection of religion as "bad". So I really don't know why anyone thinks yin and yang is a valid model and why I need to include more yin in my argument when the evidence I've seen doesn't seem to support such a viewpoint.
IOW, time to get out more and see how much people enjoy doing the things that they ought not to be doing!
Like what, for instance? How many of those enjoy committing Ponzi schemes? How many enjoy cheating on their spouses? The latter is actually an example of how this "good" vs "bad" discussion is far too black and white - studies show that the vast majority of folks who cheat on spouse don't enjoy it and aren't happy about it, but are so unhappy with some aspect of their marriage that they don't know what to do to be happy. So how does your perspective deal with that evidence? I was a counselor for three years and I can't recall that many instances where people said they felt good being bad. Nearly all the folks who I talked with freely admitted feeling lousy being bad, but that the act itself gave some measure of relief to some other problem. I just don't see that type of evidence as much supporting the notion that non-theists should be gravitating towards badness since they have no reason not to.Doveton_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Doveton, despite your shallow 'dream-world' rationalizations to the contrary; The brute reality of the fact is that there are millions and millions of people who are addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, etc.. etc.. and whose lives have been devastated by such addictions, indeed many millions have directly died from such addictions, people who were deceived into being addicted solely because they thought, contrary to warnings they received as they were growing up,,, they thought that 'being bad' would be enjoyable;,, But on the flip side of that 'the truth' has set millions upon millions free from the deceptiveness and temptations of sin; 'Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.' Heather Williams - Hallelujah - Lyrics - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1Abornagain77_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Hi Doveton, I'm sure you'll be the first to admit that building your sense of morality around a statement like: "I guess because to me, leading a good, selfless life just makes me happier than leading a not-so-good, selfish life." is entirely subjective. Consequently, you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to argue with somebody who makes the statement that: "I guess because to me, leading a good, selfless life just makes me unhappier than leading a not-so-good, selfish life." Regarding any theists who "believe that they will be rewarded solely for their beliefs; that their behavior matters not one wit": they are just wrong, simple as that. But don't let theological matters get in the way of atheistic morality: after all, if the atheistic worldview is true then ALL theology is worthless anyway. Bringing it up is frankly an admission that atheistic morality is weak and ineffective... (but you draw comfort from the fact that you believe theistic morality to be equally weak and ineffective so somehow that makes it okay for you). And if you don't think that being bad is enjoyable, if you don't understand anything about "temptation" (as BA77 rightly points out) then you are also bringing too much yang to this conversation and not enough yin. IOW, time to get out more and see how much people enjoy doing the things that they ought not to be doing!Chris Doyle_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77,
Doveton, ‘This just begs the question – there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.’
LOL,,, Then why the commercial ‘What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ i.e. No temptations???
That would be called a fallacy of the general rule - assuming something true in general is true in every possible case. Basically what you are saying here is that since one place advertises that being bad (in one context - having a one night stand (eek! Feigned shock))is fun, everyone (well...every non-theist I guess) must agree and that all forms of being bad must be equally agreed to be equally fun. That is clearly false face value - merely consider the number of non-theists in Vegas not committing murder. Or consider the vast majority of non-theists who don't go to Vegas. Of course, there's another problem with the example - Vegas offers more than just being bad and actually plenty of people go there to engage in other activities. You like golf, conventions, dining, hiking, tennis, weddings, spas, touring, etc. Yep...really evil stuff that, particularly that 'getting married' behavior...EEP! I really don't think your example is much of a rebuttal.Doveton_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Doveton, 'This just begs the question – there’s nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.' LOL,,, Then why the commercial 'What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' i.e. No temptations???bornagain77_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle,
Why? Because when atheist lead good, selfless lives they have no reason to do so – especially when they can get away with free-riding: which they can.
I must confess, I've never understood this thinking. I guess because to me, leading a good, selfless life just makes me happier than leading a not-so-good, selfish life. And really, for me that's all it boils down to: how to my actions make me feel and make those around me feel. I can perceive both, so why shouldn't that be enough for evaluating how I want to behave? I don't get why some folks think that there needs to be a reason beyond that evaluation?
When theists lead evil, selfish lives, they have compelling reasons to change their ways. They know that they will be justly rewarded for ALL of their actions – whether detected by man or not.
Not necessarily. Many theists believe that they will be rewarded solely for their beliefs; that their behavior matters not one wit. So a theist can be the most foul, selfish, killing, maiming, raping, bastard around and completely at peace with his or her life given the belief that his or her God forgives all believers sins. I certainly don't see any particular incentive in this model for a theist to behave in accordance with any concept of "goodness".
So, making out that you – an atheist – are an angel while religious belivers are demons does not have any impact on the point I’m making. If the atheistic worldview is true, then you would merely be a fool for turning down the opportunity to have an enjoyable free-ride. And if the theistic worldview is true, then sinning believers are even bigger fools.
This just begs the question - there's nothing that suggests that being bad is enjoyable.Doveton_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

I propose the Darwinian trophy for the specimens exhibiting the greatest reproductive success multiplied by efforts ensure their own survival ("might makes right"). This is awarded based on a darwinian index of the number of offspring multiplied by number of deaths. For the 20th century, I nominate Idi Amin as having a darwinian index of 12 million (with 40 children from 10 wives and having murdered some 300,000 people.)DLH_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

dmullenix, reflect on this: If every single theistic person lived a life of selfishness and evil and every single atheistic person live a life of selflessness and good, that in no way detracts from my argument. Why? Because when atheist lead good, selfless lives they have no reason to do so - especially when they can get away with free-riding: which they can. When theists lead evil, selfish lives, they have compelling reasons to change their ways. They know that they will be justly rewarded for ALL of their actions - whether detected by man or not. So, making out that you - an atheist - are an angel while religious belivers are demons does not have any impact on the point I'm making. If the atheistic worldview is true, then you would merely be a fool for turning down the opportunity to have an enjoyable free-ride. And if the theistic worldview is true, then sinning believers are even bigger fools.Chris Doyle_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Afteroon Lizzie, Do you know what? I actually think we’ve made a lot of progress here. Darkness can be so illuminating! Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me you are now acknowledging that the problem I posed by the question “Why should a miserable atheist bother with life at all?” is one that you, as an atheist, “don’t have a solution” for. Is that right? I know that you’re quick to add “And I don’t think an afterlife provides one, either”… but this is bears an uncanny resemblance to your earlier admission about the failure of atheistic morality and my response to that is the same:
“A rational atheist can logically free-ride: maintaining a public appearance of moral steadfastness while committing immoral acts whenever he desires (as long as he avoids detection) and your response is “Well, sure…” I think we should pause there for a moment, Lizzie, to let that important fact sink in rather than trying to gloss over it by changing the subject to theism.”
Because, if you are saying what you think I’m saying, then you are agreeing with me that the atheistic worldview – complete with its indifferent universe and inevitable oblivion – cannot provide any sort of motivation, hope, purpose or meaning to tragic, miserable people (of which, there are, and has been, plenty). If we now agree on that point, then that is not only progress but also the end of our discussion about atheistic meaning. However, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and actually you think that the atheistic worldview can still give a miserable atheist (non-otter-related!) reasons for bothering with life at all then let’s hear it. And, yes, when it comes to extremely miserable atheists, I do also want to know what it is about the atheistic worldview that prevents them from committing suicide. Now, returning to atheistic morality, look again at the block quote above. You may have just missed this point originally, but if you don’t wish to dispute the fact that a rational atheist can logically free-ride then it seems to me that you also “don’t have a solution” for that problem either. Is that right? If so, then that is also progress and also the end of our discussion about atheistic morality. Again, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and actually you think that the atheistic worldview can still give a selfish but rational atheist (non-what-if-we-all-did-gak-related!) reasons for NOT free-riding then let’s hear it. Remember: most crimes go unsolved (assuming they’ve even been reported in the first place). Many war criminals have been able to start a new, comfortable life. Breivik is facing 21 years in prison at most and during that time, he will not have to worry about food and shelter. He will have access to leisure and entertainment facilities and will receive sacks of fan mail. The Iron Curtain may have been lifted, but countless millions are in the grips of an Iron Fist be it from unjust leaders, poverty or natural disasters. IOW, you cannot deny, that people all over the world are getting away with murder (often literally) and that is because they are either escaping detection completely or because they are prepared to handle the increasingly weak punishment that we hand out to those who are detected. I agree, it was cheeky of me to throw in the comment about “the light of our Creator”. I couldn’t resist, the metaphor was too good! But, if you are agreeing with me on the two major points discussed above, then actually, you are at least agreeing that atheistic meaning and morality perishes in the darkest places. By all means, please correct me if I’m wrong: if my arguments are not water-tight, then I sincerely want to know why. Ah, Nottingham. I have fond memories of the Park Plaza hotel when my partner and I stayed there 5 years ago! We went up to get a 4D scan of our first daughter (who, by the way, quite enjoyed it when I read “Pip and the Edge of Heaven” to her for the first time). I will be sure to look you up if I return (though we’ll be having a 4D scan closer to home for our 18 week baby no. 3!) In the meantime, if you ever find yourself in London with a couple of hours to burn, let me know and I’ll get the first round in! Cheers Lizzie :-) ChrisChris Doyle_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

lpadron @ 46: "I think we can all agree that whether Darwinist, atheist or christian the guy was definetely nuts, right?" Not at all! The wide-spread societal acceptance of the mindset that "explains" such things as being due to a person being "nuts" is a major reasom why our western societies are falling apart. We (well, not me personally) are "nuts". He is wicked.Ilion_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Chris: "...how can any atheist condemn Breivik in terms that can be reconciled with their worldview? If life is meaningless and we face oblivion then nothing really matters – there is no wrong or right, because there is no Good or Evil:" "Life is meaningless" in the context of religion just means that there is no Big Daddy in the Sky who has some special job he wants us to do and a wonderful reward if we do it. It doesn't mean that nothing matters or there is no right or wrong. We may face oblivian eventually, but we're alive now. Personally, I enjoy life and wish to continue living as long as possible. I also wish to continue living in society because of all the advantages that entails. That means I have to conform to at least elementary morality. Since I'm a social animal (sorry Mung) I'm helped in this job by having a basic morality in my genes although this can backfire. (Excessive interest in virginity in a time where contraception is widely available, for instance. Pity the poor Muslim girl who loses her virginity and gets caught.) As far as "free-riding" is concerned, do you really think that atheists can't figure out good and evil? That seems like an odd charge in a world where atheists are NOT strapping on explosive vests and blowing themselves up in crowds. If there is no God, then religions get their morality from humans just like atheists do - their human leaders and the human authors of their holy books. Find a map showing how religious influence is distributed around the world and another map that shows how violence is distributed around the world. Tell us what kind of overlap you find.dmullenix_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

I think we can all agree that whether Darwinist, atheist or christian the guy was definetely nuts, right?lpadron_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

EL at 43: "Yes, and if you re-read your post, you will note that I mention plenty of yin – people who cannot empathise; people who cannot learn why they should not do gak-stuff; people who do learn, but refuse to care. And then there is human misery – sometimes caused by gross injustice, sometimes by natural disaster, sometimes by mental illness, sometimes by cruelty (gak stuff)." Don't forget malaria. According to Michael Behe, God made the malaria parasite. Malaria kills about a million people a year with a heavy proportion of them being children. Hitler killed about 20 million total with a good percentage of them being children. So if there is a God and Behe is right about His designing activities, God kills about a Hitler's worth of innocent humans every 20 years. And that's just from malaria. Influenza killed about one Hitler's worth just in the year or two after WW I.dmullenix_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Mung at 40 “So let me now support my statement that atheists deny what it means to be human. To be human is to not be an animal. Yet atheists do in fact deny this. According to atheists, humans are animals. If you are an atheist, don’t bother responding. You are an animal, and I don’t bother attempting to argue with animals.” No problem. I don’t respond to vegetables or minerals.dmullenix_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle:
Hiya Lizzie, your response covered a lot of ground and I hope that, in time (eventually!), we will cover it all thoroughly. But right now, let me make a general observation that might help to explain the huge difference in opinion we have on the subject of meaning (and morality). To put it bluntly, I don’t see any darkness in your responses!
Well, it's there, lurking Chris, I think you'll find :) But perhaps this was not a week (nor a thread) I wanted to make much darker.
Now let me explain: I’m reaching for something like yin and yang here. You’re giving us plenty of yang (lightness) when you talk about life being “fun, and beautiful, and filled with good things! Including joy, and curiosity, and love. Why does an otter bother with life? Think of atheists as otters.” But where is the yin (darkness) in any of that? Nowhere. And the thing about life is, it has plenty of yin: darkness, suffering and despair.
Yes, and if you re-read your post, you will note that I mention plenty of yin - people who cannot empathise; people who cannot learn why they should not do gak-stuff; people who do learn, but refuse to care. And then there is human misery - sometimes caused by gross injustice, sometimes by natural disaster, sometimes by mental illness, sometimes by cruelty (gak stuff). And I think there are answers, which I gave, but none of them infallible. Sometimes we have to incarcerate people for the duration of their lives (Ian Brady, for instance). Sometimes we have to kill, as the lesser harm. Sometime major depressive disorder simply does not respond to treatment. Sometimes we have to settle for the minimum benefit, meagre though it is. When I lived in Canada, there was a news story about a doctor who had finally given up working in a northern Inuit community because the cycle of despair had become, as she found it, unbreakable - children were born with FAS, became adult alcoholics, had children with FAS, and so on. FAS seems incurable - the children can be delightful but seem incapable of ever behaving responsibly, or of real empathy. The best adults can do is to try and keep them, and others safe. In a sense they are permanent children. But you can't keep irresponsible children safe in a community where there are no adults - where child grows into a parent-child, passing on their own condition. It's a Lamarckian dystopia. So yes, there is plenty of darkness, suffering and despair. I don't have a solution. And I don't think an afterlife provides one, either.
For some, there is a balance between yin and yang. A minority, thanks to the insulation and comfort that significant material wealth can bring for instance, probably have more yang in their lives and so can live the carefree, meaningless existence of the otter.
Well all analogies are limited, Chris. Otters do not have a "meaningless" existence - they simply have no concept of meaning. We do. It does not mean we cannot enjoy life, and we do not require material wealth to do so. We do require a degree freedom from material want, which is not the same thing.
But for many more, there is mostly just yin. They can only ever dream of living like an otter: and the trouble with dreams is that the unattainable ones just add to the torment. The history of humanity on this planet is filled with people who have had more than their fair share of suffering and deprivation. You simply cannot contemplate all of human yin and say, “Don’t worry, Liz’ll Fix It!”.
No. And nor did I. And nor can God. Or, if s/he can, doesn't.
Such tragic people won’t (and don’t) get by with a little help from their friends. Do you need me to illustrate the imbalance of yin that actually plagues so many human lives by talking about poverty, disease, war, famine, death, corruption, depression, despair, addiction, deprivation, hopelessness, intimidation, insecurity, grief, breakdown and all of the other different forms and combinations that human suffering takes in order to help you understand the depth of the question “Why should a miserable atheist bother with life at all?” Because the absence of darkness from your response certainly strikes me as being flippant! I’m not talking about somebody who can be “cheered up” by “getting out a bit” for goodness sake!
OK Chris, then I'm not getting your point at all, because, as you will see from the above, I am certainly not suggesting that these problems can be easily solved! Are you simply asking why a miserable atheist should not commit suicide? Have I grossly over-interpreted your question?
This is certainly not a “non-problem” but excessive yin certainly affects believers as well as atheists. Again, don’t worry about working out why a miserable believer should bother with life at all: let believers worry about that. You just stick to tragic, despairing, desolate, hopeless atheists, Lizzie: atheists who can only dream of living like an otter, a dream which only adds to their daily torment. I hope you will see that my appeal to yin and yang also applies to morality. Your atheistic morality is utterly dependent on an over-abundance of yang. Where is the darkness? How do you deal with the fact that the history of humanity on this planet is filled with people who have led extremely selfish lives and committed many evil acts? The fact is gak happens all the time and, in the real world, no-one stops to think “but what if everyone did gak?”
Of course they do Chris! It's why we have a justice system! It's why we form governments, and parliaments, and democracies! Why do you think we despise cheaters, and hold them up to public shame? Precisely because most of us, possibly all of us, "stops to think 'but what if everyone did gak'"! The history of human civilisation is the history of how people organised themselves so as to ensure that gak-stuff is minimised. Some systems are pretty gak-ridden themselves, and only count as gak, stuff that hurts members of one community, and not stuff that hurst members of another. But we are an intelligent species, capabable of abstract though, and we devise principles, over the millenia, which we pass down, and so we learn. We don't do human sacrifice any more; we don't do public hangings and disembowelings (or at least people condemn them when they occur); we make our prisons more humane; we devise concepts like human rights and international law that transcend narrower concepts of justice. And we do so because there is indeed darkness, Chris, and yet most people, Christian and atheist, have an anti-gak drive to eradicate it.
and, in the real world, containment, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation are either ineffective, non-existent or counter-productive: thus producing more gak than ever!
I disagree. There will always be darkness in the world, but as I see it, the forces of darkness (metaphor alert) aren't winning. Hitler was defeated; Breivik is defeated; the Iron Curtain lifted; hunger is less common; mutilation, slavery and exploitation are more widely condemned. This is because we all start life with an anti-gak drive, and with, as I said, wise etc mentorship, it gets stronger. And that wise mentorship is what an increasingly civilised world provides. Or can.
Do you need me to illustrate just how evil and selfish many people can be, how genuinely unaffected they are by the pain or concerns for others (and whether or not they’re liked by others) and how easy, comfortable and pleasurable it is for them to do gak whenever they want in order to help you understand the depth of the question “How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding?” Because it’s no good saying “we don’t want to live in a society where gak is easy to do” when in fact we DO live in a society where gak is easy to do. Nor can you appeal to “our gak-minimising system” because, nowadays, it is utterly useless.
Well, I simply disagree, Chris. I guess that's all I can say. We are seeing different evidence here.
Okay, sorry to bring so much darkness to our discussion, but if you want to subject atheistic meaning and morality to proper scrutiny, then you have to go to the darkest places. I put it to you that atheistic meaning and morality perishes in such places. But one light shines brighter than ever in such places: the light of our Creator.
I know it is difficult to talk without metaphors Chris, but I do think we need to be careful not to mistake metaphor for argument! I could as easily write: "Okay, sorry to bring so much darkness to our discussion, but if you want to subject theistic meaning and morality to proper scrutiny, then you have to go to the darkest places. I put it to you that theistic meaning and morality perishes in such places. But one light shines brighter than ever in such places: the light of our native human capacity for altruism." You will not be persuaded, but perhaps you will see why I am not persuaded by your original :)
One last thing, I very much admire all of your yang, Lizzie – such lightness and optimism are things to be proud of. When I’m not talking about atheistic meaning and morality, you’ll find my company much more pleasant and enjoyable!
Well, if you are ever in Nottingham, let me know and we should have a drink :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
I found a simpler model that seems to me to work just as well, in all the ways that theism worked, and even better in others. It does not deny humans their humanity.
Nonsense. Models, by your own admission, are necessarily wrong. Silly person.Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

So let me now continue to support my statement that atheists deny what it means to be human. To be human is to be an earthly being. The obvious contrast here is to heavenly beings. Not only is there a contrast between earthly and heavenly, but there is also a hint of Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Atheists, in denying both that God exists and that humans are a creation of God, deny what it means to be human. Let the attempts to re-define what it means to be human by denying what it means to be human begin!Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

So let me now support my statement that atheists deny what it means to be human. To be human is to not be an animal. Yet atheists do in fact deny this. According to atheists, humans are animals. If you are an atheist, don't bother responding. You are an animal, and I don't bother attempting to argue with animals.Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Chris, yin = bs yang = bs detection what a bummerMung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

haha. hahahahaha. good nightmike1962_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Instead of “evil” we have “gak”. But we call it “evil”, because it looks exactly the same as what you call evil.
nullasalus, you actually read through that post? One has to wonder if EL looked up gak and gakking before using the term, lol.Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
But for the record: I was a theist – a devout theist – for half a century.
Until she found out that Nazis espoused Christianity.Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: It does not deny humans their humanity.
Nor salt it's saltiness, nor something that is truly toovey, its tooveyness. All things do indeed retain the properties that are attributed to them. I would sincerely doubt that you would ever say humans do not have a quality generally attributable to humans--that 2% of difference from chimps which accounts for the shape and function of almost everything as far as my eye can see--and further into the city that I imagine/remember behind it--is just what it is. Their 98%-chimpanity. How can we be definite about it and yet properly provisional? But that aside, I don't know what your knowledge of humans are, but we are not machines that can have pointers to the contents in some expert's mind or some text book we haven't touched in 20 years. There's a social argument that is at the core of all that goes around here. And it's not just the ID-ers (if somebody wanted to kick the can). Quite recently, there was an article about how people who did not assent to evolutionary statements weren't "evolutionary literate" and couldn't "participate in a 21st-century economy". Is there a lot about economics in evolutionary biology? I'm guessing not. And I'm guessing not a whole lot in Darwin either. And what if it did have some mention, how is it that you couldn't participate without it providing the case for some strategies of participating--some goals even. Actually, Darwinian advocates say some stuff like that all the time, and then they blame bystanders who try to follow it for nonsense that comes out of it. So it's important in a societal context to stop ID from confusing people who could become confused and causing a whole bunch of things not explicit in ID theory--how many torches and pitchforks in "specified complexity" anyway? So we push for "scientific literacy" in the form of assent to some really simple rephrasing of evolutionary theory, on the precarious tipping point of layman "confusion", despite that assent to trivial restatements does not entail a lack of confusion that we can find when somebody who assents, participates in a 21st century economy and to defend the "cradle of Science" (not entailed by any Scientific theory, mind you) buys a gun and shoots the people he sees letting a culture of torches and pitchforks slip in the backdoor. That's right, trust not in your own understanding of Evolution, but in all ways try hard to develop a pointer to the contents of Jerry Coyne's brain. How robust is the idea that "improvement" comes from the death of those not as improved to misunderstanding? No, the fault is in the capacity of the species to misunderstand. And can is some way be blamed on the ignorance of people who misunderstand a completely different thing.jjcassidy_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle, One thing I'd add about your 'free riding' question is this: Replying to "How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding?" with, in essence, "Pass and enforce laws against free-riding!" strikes me as missing the point - because free-riding presents itself even with those laws present. It's like asking the question "Why should an atheist follow the laws if it would benefit him not to and he can get away with it?" and getting the answer of "Pass laws against getting away with it!" Likewise there's a problem with saying how, since 'we all want to live in a gak-free society' that we therefore have reason to individually 'avoid gak'. If I can avoid gak happening to myself, but still engage in gak to my own benefit, then the answer seems clear on atheism: Go for it if you like. And that's the problem that keeps coming up when morality is ultimately all about getting what you subjectively desire - talk of 'minimizing harm for your own benefit' presumes that minimizing harm will benefit you. But if what benefits you (in a universe with no objective morality, no judgment, and a finite life) is harming people, and benefiting yourself is the prime goal, well then.... again, it seems the answer of what to do is clear. (Likewise, talk about 'empathy' doesn't mean much on materialist atheism. You can get over empathy, I assure you. And hey, maybe ditching the empathy will result in more self-benefit. I recall reading about a study suggesting that psychopaths are better stock traders, because they don't get sentimental about their stocks or the companies - they just think in terms of raw benefit.)nullasalus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Hiya Lizzie, your response covered a lot of ground and I hope that, in time (eventually!), we will cover it all thoroughly. But right now, let me make a general observation that might help to explain the huge difference in opinion we have on the subject of meaning (and morality). To put it bluntly, I don’t see any darkness in your responses! Now let me explain: I’m reaching for something like yin and yang here. You’re giving us plenty of yang (lightness) when you talk about life being “fun, and beautiful, and filled with good things! Including joy, and curiosity, and love. Why does an otter bother with life? Think of atheists as otters.” But where is the yin (darkness) in any of that? Nowhere. And the thing about life is, it has plenty of yin: darkness, suffering and despair. For some, there is a balance between yin and yang. A minority, thanks to the insulation and comfort that significant material wealth can bring for instance, probably have more yang in their lives and so can live the carefree, meaningless existence of the otter. But for many more, there is mostly just yin. They can only ever dream of living like an otter: and the trouble with dreams is that the unattainable ones just add to the torment. The history of humanity on this planet is filled with people who have had more than their fair share of suffering and deprivation. You simply cannot contemplate all of human yin and say, “Don’t worry, Liz’ll Fix It!”. Such tragic people won’t (and don’t) get by with a little help from their friends. Do you need me to illustrate the imbalance of yin that actually plagues so many human lives by talking about poverty, disease, war, famine, death, corruption, depression, despair, addiction, deprivation, hopelessness, intimidation, insecurity, grief, breakdown and all of the other different forms and combinations that human suffering takes in order to help you understand the depth of the question “Why should a miserable atheist bother with life at all?” Because the absence of darkness from your response certainly strikes me as being flippant! I’m not talking about somebody who can be “cheered up” by “getting out a bit” for goodness sake! This is certainly not a “non-problem” but excessive yin certainly affects believers as well as atheists. Again, don’t worry about working out why a miserable believer should bother with life at all: let believers worry about that. You just stick to tragic, despairing, desolate, hopeless atheists, Lizzie: atheists who can only dream of living like an otter, a dream which only adds to their daily torment. I hope you will see that my appeal to yin and yang also applies to morality. Your atheistic morality is utterly dependent on an over-abundance of yang. Where is the darkness? How do you deal with the fact that the history of humanity on this planet is filled with people who have led extremely selfish lives and committed many evil acts? The fact is gak happens all the time and, in the real world, no-one stops to think “but what if everyone did gak?” and, in the real world, containment, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation are either ineffective, non-existent or counter-productive: thus producing more gak than ever! Do you need me to illustrate just how evil and selfish many people can be, how genuinely unaffected they are by the pain or concerns for others (and whether or not they’re liked by others) and how easy, comfortable and pleasurable it is for them to do gak whenever they want in order to help you understand the depth of the question “How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding?” Because it’s no good saying “we don’t want to live in a society where gak is easy to do” when in fact we DO live in a society where gak is easy to do. Nor can you appeal to “our gak-minimising system” because, nowadays, it is utterly useless. Okay, sorry to bring so much darkness to our discussion, but if you want to subject atheistic meaning and morality to proper scrutiny, then you have to go to the darkest places. I put it to you that atheistic meaning and morality perishes in such places. But one light shines brighter than ever in such places: the light of our Creator. One last thing, I very much admire all of your yang, Lizzie - such lightness and optimism are things to be proud of. When I’m not talking about atheistic meaning and morality, you’ll find my company much more pleasant and enjoyable!Chris Doyle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

I was a theist – a devout theist – for half a century. Keep in mind, this comes hot on the heels of her alternately saying that she is (now) an atheist, a pantheist, and a theist. She's also a reductive materialist, a non-reductive materialist, or not a materialist depending on the way the wind is blowing or how the conversation is going. And the sort of theism she subscribed to in the past was, apparently, a sort where nothing that occurs in nature could ever be attributable to a God, because that would have conflicted with her theology. The EL pattern of reasoning involves a lot of bluffing and obfuscating on ideas. And what a surprise - we see it in this thread too: Instead of “evil” we have “gak”. But we call it “evil”, because it looks exactly the same as what you call evil. Except if you go through the reasoning, theists and non-materialists have objective moral standards rooted in essential natures, in some platonic goodness, in God, etc. Evil is that which violates those standards. But for "gak", there are none of these things. Even identifying "gak" as "that which does harm" doesn't work, because what is "harmful" itself has no real referent other than "that which we dislike" or an arbitrary rule, nor would identifying "that which causes harm" in that sense give us an "ought" of "we ought not cause harm". It looks exactly the same, so long as you ignore all the differences. Likewise, EL's reply to the issue of free-riding is "well, pass laws against free-riding!" Fantastic, but the question remains: And if you can evade those laws? "Well, maybe it would serve your personal desires to follow those laws!" Indeed. And if it doesn't? The short of it is, no one denies that atheists can make and enforce laws - as if what's being doubted is whether or not atheists can develop or play a game of Monopoly.nullasalus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

jjcassidy: thank you for your respond. Right now, I'm not making a lot of sense of it, but it's getting later here, and perhaps I'll be brighter in the morning. But for the record: I was a theist - a devout theist - for half a century. Then, as you suggest, I found a simpler model that seems to me to work just as well, in all the ways that theism worked, and even better in others. It does not deny humans their humanity.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply