There’s Something Wrong With You

Is there any religion that doesn’t tell you that you’re dirty, tainted, immoral, and flawed? If there is such a religion, there certainly isn’t a monotheism that doesn’t.

Why?

Here’s why: virtually all religions share a standard of morality in common with secular beliefs, as much as the Humanists and New Atheists would like to believe differently. They all hold one particular action as the standard of good noble virtuous behaviour, a standard that is irrational, contradictory, and ultimately impossible to achieve. It is no surprise therefore that the phrases “nobody’s perfect” and “I’m only human” are bandied around so often by theists and atheists alike.

What is this standard? Sacrifice.

Before anybody complains that I’m tarring everyone with the same brush, I’m talking about society in general, religion in general (monotheism mostly), and even secular atheist forms of morality. Ask yourself: do you consider the parable of the widow’s mite a lesson in virtuous behaviour? To those not familiar with the story, it’s a lesson given by Jesus in the bible in the gospels of Mark and Luke. After seeing the rich and wealthy donate large sums of money in the temple charity box, an old lady comes along and drops only two mites, the least valuable of coins. Jesus has this to say: “That poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. They all gave a lot because they are rich. But she gave even though she is poor. She put in everything she had. She gave all she had to live on.” – Mark 12: 43-44, New International Reader’s Version.

There are several interpretations of the lesson being offered here, but I will take this one: the greater the sacrifice, the more it hurts, the more of a burden you impose on yourself for others, the more virtuous, the more moral the action.

Even the non-religious might empathise with this thinking. After all, taking care of yourself or those you care about is easy isn’t it? It takes a really moral person to put other people first, to put strangers ahead of loved ones, to give instead of receive.

This, basically, is what is wrong with religion and society’s warped view of morality today. Why else do you think selfishness is regarded negatively, and selflessness is praised?

But if sacrifice is the human ideal, to whom should we sacrifice? And what is to be sacrificed? You cannot sacrifice to those you care about, since that would be selfish. The more selfless the act, the more you should sacrifice to those you care least about, or even hate. And how can you sacrifice without first having? So what does this morality recommend? Do we live a life of “immoral” selfish pursuit, accruing values until some undeterminable point in the future when we must then give away? If everyone did this, what would be left to sacrifice? And when you have sacrificed until you have nothing left, the beneficiary of your actions must then sacrifice everything they have for another, and so on and so on, until the entire human race is left with nothing and there is nobody left to sacrifice to.

This thinking leads to the punishing of productivity and creativity for their own sake, and the raising and exalting of inability and suffering for the sake of being so. Don’t believe me? Consider some examples:

Who is living the more “moral” life in your eyes: the social worker who slaves all day to help people or the businessman who makes a fortune off his products? The son who leaves home to pursue a career of his own, or the one who spends his youth taking care of his sick relatives?

These aren’t specific examples – but they illustrate a trend. Act for yourself: selfish, immoral. Act for others: selfless, moral. For everyday examples, notice when you try to justify an action to others. You will have far more chance of being convincing if you make out yours actions were motivated by concern for others at your own expense, than if you just stated honestly that you were acting in your own rational self-interest.

Here’s a fact: businessmen throughout history have done more to benefit the human race than any number of social workers, charity workers, or caring for the community workers ever have done put together and squared. I’m not attacking charity at all. On the contrary, charity is a wonderful way for those who are well-off to take care of other people and benefit their society as a whole through a freely chosen genuine act of compassion and human empathy (which is a selfish action by the way). What I am attacking is the notion that this is the most noble act one can do. As if the greatest thing a human being can do with their life is live it for other people. Wrong.

No person is a sacrificial object for another person. Nobody’s life belongs to you, and your life belongs to nobody but yourself. Nobody can make a claim to your mind or your body or your property (they are one and the same), nor can you claim theirs.

Yet, that is exactly what most religions and collectivist moralities deny. They say that you have no right to exist in your own right; that the noblest thing you can do is forsake yourself, give away what you have, live on the essentials, give what you can to others, live for the sole purpose of making the world a better place, for making other people happy. What about the self?

Any morality that asks this of its adherents has only one standard: death. Why? Simple: if you choose to live, if you choose to pursue your own life as your ultimate value, you must act in harmony with that value and hold your other values as a guide to your actions. You must accept reason as your primary means of survival, and act consistently with your values. This means NEVER sacrificing a higher value for a lower one. In fact, it means NEVER sacrificing anything, ever. If you give something up of great value for something of even greater value (say, spending £100,000 on an operation to save your child), that is NOT a sacrifice.

There is absolutely no way to deny this, except to use something other than your own life as the standard. And of course there is only one alternative to life: death.

No wonder the morality of sacrifice, of altruism, is so impossible to achieve! No wonder this morality teaches people that they are sinful depraved losers in dirt, who must constantly keep giving and giving to achieve an impossible standard. The morality of sacrifice is the philosophy of self-denigration, self-abuse, self-rejection, and suffering.

Consider this alternative:

“The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.”

“Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man’s instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.”

Both quotes are taken from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged.

It’s a shame that so many New Age Atheists who are so quick to vilify religion as immoral and irrational still accept many of its basic tenets.

Ayn Rand saw man as a being that could achieve moral perfection. As a being that was not sinful and flawed, but as an efficacious virtuous rational creature without limits, that could achieve his own happiness and betterment. She did this by rejecting the irrational evil morality of suffering and self-sacrifice, and identifying rational egoism as the code of morality, and reason as the highest virtue man could hold. If you can do this, then you’ll learn that there is nothing wrong with you! You can be a perfect virtuous person.

Why Selflessness is Immoral

Selflessness or altruism means putting the interests of others above yourself.  Just as “selfishness” has negative connotations in society of self-interest at the expense of others, “altruism” is often thought of as kind or generous acts for others.  This view is wrong.  It is wrong because the originator of the term himself, Auguste Comte, meant it to mean precisely what it implies: acting for the sake of others with no thought to oneself.

It is this true original definition of altruism that I am using here, and I will use altruism and selflessness interchangeably.

Selflessness is irrational.  It is irrational because it demands that the beneficiary of your actions be others.  Does it suggest who these others should be?  That is a decision an individual would make for himself based on his personal values.  But, since altruism dictates that we should hold our interests or values in no regard when acting, altruism actually states that the personal value of the beneficiary be irrelevant to our action!  By this “logic” not only would giving money to a drug-dealing rapist be just as moral as giving money to an orphanage, it would be more moral!

Why is that?  It comes down to personal values.  To suggest that some people are more worthy than others to benefit from acts of generosity implies that one has made a value judgment oneself in such matters based on a personal evaluation of worth.  But acting in accordance with one’s personal values is a SELFISH act.  Choosing to help your friend over a stranger is a selfish act.  Choosing to save the life of your lover over the life of an enemy is a selfish act.  Going to work and spending your hard-earned money on yourself and not giving it to every beggar in the street who asks is a selfish act.  Conversely, giving help to an unknown over a friend would be selfless.  Giving up the life of your lover so that a hated person could live would be a selfless act.  Coming home from work and handing out £50 notes to people you see on the street would be a selfless act.  Selfless means “otherness”; it means the defiance of personal values.

Clearly, this is not the sort of moral guide most altruists have in mind when they talk about “selflessness” (although many altruists do, such as the religious), yet that is exactly what their “morality” means, and if they disagree they don’t understand their own moral position.

A perfect example of this self-contradiction is in a recent post by the humanist Ebonmuse:

“Instead, what brings happiness is participation - interaction with the world and exploration of all it has to offer, our relationships to friends and loved ones and a larger community, and selfless labor for the good of others.” (Bold mine)

Notice that our friends, our loved ones, our community, our happiness, our interaction are cited as positive things.  Positive for whom?  Beneficial for whom?  For us!  These are selfish values.  They are a personal value to us, and we act on them because we derive benefit from them.  Yet Ebonmuse also insists that our labour be totally unrelated to personal value!  So which is it?  Should our actions be selfish or selfless?  You cannot have it both ways.

Proponents of “selfless morality” (a contradiction in terms) will fiercely disagree and claim that I am attacking a strawman or twisting their position.  But clearly I am not: to use any personal values as a guide to making decisions is a selfish act.  Selflessness requires the contradiction of personal values; it requires that one act for the sake of acting, for no personal benefit at all.  And if you disagree that this is the correct course of action you should not call yourself an altruist or promote selflessness.

The belief that an act (or anything) is good or bad in itself is intrinsicism.  However nothing can be good or bad in itself.  “Good” or “bad” provoke the question: good or bad to whom?  Which implies that someone or something can make a value judgment concerning the objective effect that something in reality will have in regard to their existence.  There is only one thing in existence that can do this: consciousness.  Moral value judgments arise because of a consciousness’ relation to reality.  This is simply, and self-evidently because, for there to be “good” or “bad” – value or non-value, there must be a valuer.

This personal evaluation of what is beneficial or detrimental to a conscious being has to be performed by that conscious being.  By identifying the type of being it is and its relationship to reality, a being can discover what is of value to its life and what is not; what is “good” for its life and what is “bad” – and this is what morality is: a code of values to guide actions.  That is why true objective morality is not a duty, or set of rules passed on by authority, or a guidebook invented by man.    It is something that can, that has to be, objectively discovered by humans; by each human.

For this reason, morality is a personal matter – it is a guide for each of us how to live our lives.  It is not an ethereal magical phenomena that arises through social behaviour; it is not determined by social norm or majority whim or evolutionary instinct.

Since morality is a code of values to guide actions, it is necessary that these values be rationally discovered – otherwise they would not correspond to reality and would therefore be useless as a guide to any action.  But selflessness would demand the contradiction of our values.  It would demand of us sacrifice.

The morality of altruism is the morality of sacrifice: the giving up of higher values for lower ones; surrendering what is of more value to you for what is of less or none.  Just as giving up £100 for £5 is irrational, so is sacrificing your values to non-values.  But the irrational cannot be the moral, since it is only moral values that can be a guide in our life.  Therefore, selflessness and altruism are positively immoral – they require the irrational nonsensical valueless abandonment of our values for a non-existence supposedly intrinsic immanent “good”.

The sacrifice of values cannot result in happiness, since happiness is the lasting joy that arises from achieving our values.  Our values guide our actions, and ultimately every action has a purpose, and our ultimate purpose is: life.  There is only one alternative: death.  And since selfishly pursuing one’s own values is the moral guide to achieve happiness, selflessness is ultimately the immoral guide to achieving suffering.  Rational egoism holds life as the standard.  Selflessness’s standard is death.

The Problem with Atheists

Self-professed atheists think they have come to the conclusion that there is no god through a process of critical thinking and logical reasoning. They either make the positive intellectually-certain claim “there is no god” or what many believe to be the more “balanced”, “less radical” position of “I have absolutely no reason to believe in god but cannot rule his existence out altogether”. The problem with many atheists is that once they reach this position of god-denial, they think their reasoning is done, and become just as assured of their other positions as the theists they dislike so much, thinking of themselves as “rationalists”.

There is a difference between being an atheist and having a rational worldview though. Being an atheist just means you have taken a position on one particular matter of belief. Atheism is not a worldview or a belief system. It offers absolutely no other descriptive or prescriptive content apart from ‘this person doesn’t believe in god’. The problem with some atheists is that they do indeed think atheism is a worldview.

Atheism belongs only to the question of “god” – which is only one in the myriad field of questions, under the heading of belief. The problem with modern atheists is the same “problem” that plagues the worlds of philosophy and science. They tacitly or openly accept the notion that omniscience is necessary for absolute certainty. Philosophical scepticism permeates their worldview like a disease: we can never be sure of anything; our senses aren’t reliable; certainty is impossible; objectivity is naive; definite statements can’t be made in science; total knowledge is necessary for accurate claims. There is no greater exponent of this scepticism than the postmodern subjectivist with his diabolical multiculturalism. But the scientific community as well as the philosophical one as a rule accept this nihilism as the given.

As an example, how many times have you heard a theist say “you can’t call yourself an atheist – have you examined every part of the universe to see if god exists??” To which the atheist might respond: “I don’t need to examine the entire universe; there might be a god, but I see no reason to believe in one – and the burden of proof is on you.” The atheist is right that the burden of proof is on the theist – but he still cannot be 100% sure of his position, and he unwittingly accepts the philosophical scepticism that the theist smuggles into the question. In the same way that philosophical scepticism says that just because the sun rose yesterday doesn’t mean we can be sure it will rise tomorrow, the atheist who “is committed to reason and logic” refuses to rule out the supernatural, god, ghosts, vampires, goblins, elves, chi, astrology entirely – because he still accepts the nonsensical proposition that definite knowledge is impossible; that omniscience is necessary for certainty; that our senses can be fooling us one from minute to the next. So no matter how “rational” the atheist is, he still has to allow a modicum of irrationality in his worldview: that all the things he rejects might actually exist. But omniscience is not necessary to know that god is impossible and that the supernatural and paranormal are irrelevant anti-concepts that can be dismissed with 100% confidence.

Atheism is not a replacement for religion. That is why many deconvertees feel despondent and nihilistic when their worldview is shattered, as I once did. Religion is a complete worldview – it is an attempt to provide a complete philosophy, in that it attempts to account for knowledge, metaphysics, morality, politics, and aesthetics. It fails – but I think many atheists don’t realise how powerful religion is – it is powerful because it is important, and it is important because it represents a true human need: a philosophy for living. Religion doesn’t answer that need, because it is intellectually void and rejects reality – and places the primacy on consciousness and not existence itself. Atheism is not a worldview, and it is most certainly not a philosophy. The other “worldviews” that atheists turn to are not valid philosophies either. One example might be Humanism, a position that claims the universal value and worth of all people. However, Humanism does not give a definite objective definition of morality and it has no political agenda. Peter Singer as one example, a self-professioned Humanist, disagrees with many tenets of Humanism, such as the preferential treatment of human beings. Unfortunately, there is no way for Humanists to decide who is right on this issue. Secular Humanism has come to mean the rejection of religion in a political and moral setting, but it prescribes nothing objective in its place. For this, Humanists are free to discover any code of morality they choose, and are left to argue over what is right, morally and politically. Humanism has no objective definite positions on morality or politics, and what positions are generally accepted by humanists are usually based on some subjective collectivist notion of morality, such as utilitarianism – the idea that the whole is more important than any of its parts, and humans are cells in a superorganism that can and should be sacrificed for the good of the whole. In this respect, utilitarians merely substitute “god” for “society”. Atheists want religion gone, but offer nothing in its place that even resembles a proper philosophy and worldview.

The problem with some atheists is that, in their rush to displace religion and espouse all that religion traditionally rejects, they turn their lives into a quest to “make the world a better place” – and just like the religious, only their definition of better is allowed, and, just like the religious, they want their notions enforced politically. To take just one example: the fundamentalist wants a global theocracy. The modern-day atheist wants a global democracy. Most atheists idealise democracy almost religiously – an absolute to be unquestioned, “the best government we have or can have”; a “necessary evil”, they might say. It never even occurs to many to even question the idea of “universal good”, “making the world a better place (even by force)”, “democracy”. And this is because, just like the theist, many atheists steal the concepts of “good”, “better”, “freedom” from their necessary antecedents and apply them out of context, not realising they are contradicting themselves.

Want some examples?

Animal rights. “Rights” are a moral principle that define freedom of thought and action. Animals are not moral beings and have no conscious freedom of thought and action. They cannot therefore have rights.

Free Democracy. Democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the enforced demand of a majority that is necessarily at the expense of the minority. It holds the collective as the standard and purpose, and individuals as means to that end. As such, it cannot respect freedom, since freedom only applies to thought and action, and only an individual can think and act. “Free democracy” is an oxymoron.

Making the world a better place. This idealist notion holds other peoples’ lives and happiness as the purpose of one’s own. By this thinking, the only goal in your life should be to make other people happy or maximise happiness in general, even if at your own expense. If there is no one around to please or help, your life has no meanin therefore. What about those who don’t want your help? What about those you don’t subscribe to your collectivist mentality, an example of which is the redistribution of wealth? Do you take their property from them? Do you threaten to arrest them if they don’t share their wealth? “Well”, you rationalise to yourself, it’s for the “greater good”. Wrong. Again, more concept-stealing – how can you enforce a moral action?? It’s a contradiction in terms.

A perfect example of this Modern Atheist is the excellent Christopher Hitchens. I like Hitchens, and I love watching him speak and debate – but his idea of morality is evolved social behaviour. His political ideal is democracy (I believe he is still a socialist). His support of the invasion of Iraq is not grounded primarily on acting in American’s rational self-interest, viz, to remove a very real threat – but as an act of altruism to “save” the Iraqi people and make their lives better, even at the expense of thousands of American soldiers. When it came to justifying an objective epistemology and metaphysics based on atheism, Hitchens was put in the shade by the Dinesh D’Souza.

In a recent debate, I encountered several of these “New Atheists” who’d read a little Dawkins and Hitchens and considered themselves rational just because they rejected god. Being an atheist means NOTHING about having a rational worldview – it is only one possible corollary of having such a worldview. As theists love to point out, many atheists committed atrocities just like theists did. Many atheists like to fight on this issue, especially Hitchens and Dawkins, protesting “but they didn’t commit their crimes in the name of atheism!” Who cares? Some of them actually did – the point is that it doesn’t matter: they were atheists, so in and of itself atheism says nothing about a person’s rationality. The war to fight is not theism vs atheism, it is irrationalism vs rationalism, subjectivity vs objectivity. And then, the war is there to fight only if it is of value to YOU. It is not a purpose in itself; not a campaign to spend your life selflessly pursuing.

There is one philosophy that I accept to the best of my knowledge. One that rejects philosophical scepticism; one that refuses to fight on the nihilistic grounds of the irrationalist; one that knows what its foundations are; one that has an objective account of reality and knowledge; one that has an objective morality; objective politics; and defines the proper values and virtues of human life. One that states that “the highest moral purpose man can pursue is his own happiness”; that life is an end in itself; that our lives are not sacrificial objects for the sakes of others – they our lives are our own and belong to us and no one else. A philosophy that states that reason is our primary means for survival – and every else flows from this. This is of course Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

It’s not my purpose in life to “convert” people, and I don’t live to win people over to Objectivism or do their thinking for them; I don’t live to “make the world a better place” – each of us must make our lives as good as possible, and that includes caring for those we value. All I would like to point out is that many atheists these days are confused about their philosophical premises, even the “experts” like Dawkins and Hitchens. A person who honestly seeks a rational worldview would do well to study Objectivism, especially those “rational” atheists out there who despise religion so much yet cannot justify many of their own subjective notions.

Humanist Symposium #12

Humanist Symposium #12

DEDICATED TO BLUE LINCHPIN

Greetings one and all. It is my pleasure to present this Humanist Symposium, the last one of the year.

Before we go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to dedicate this Humanist Symposium to Blue Linchpin. Her last post was June 11^th and she had been struggling with cancer for some time. This would be a tragedy no matter who it was, but when it happens to someone so young and so intellectually alive, it seems all the more unfair. After silence for so long, I think we all fear the worst.

 

I couldn’t think of a particularly unique or clever way to present this Symposium (!), so I’ve decided to offer each submission with my personal reflections on each article.

Let’s get started:

 

A Load of Bright presents a treatise On Patriotism. This is a brief but excellent summation of the arbitrary nature of nationality, and why the author identifies himself as a citizen of earth first and foremost, instead of referring to the accidental place of birth. This article echoes my personal opinions on the matter too.

Greta Christina’s Blog – A Relationship Between Physical Things: Yet Another Rant on What Consciousness and Selfhood Might Be

This is a succinct, eloquent, and very enjoyable read about the nature of human consciousness; blowing dualism out of the water.

Wild Philosophy – Humanism – Nietzsche and Camus

An interesting insight into one humanist’s political and moral positions, inspired by Camus. I agree with hardly anything said in this controversial article but it’s definitely worth a read.

Spanish Inquisitor – My Reunion

I had the pleasure of reading this article when it was first posted on Span’s blog which I frequent. This is a beautiful and touching story that I strongly recommend everyone read.

An Apostate’s Chapel – Words of Wisdom from Walt Whitman

A nice poem, and a few words from the blogger about how he feels being an humanist means a connection and a responsibility with and to all people, and the planet itself.

Sharp Brains – Robert Emmons on The Positive Psychology of Gratitude

This article is a question and answer session with Robert Emmons, Professor of Psychology at UC Davis, on the positive mental and physical effects of holding a better psychological approach in life.

Next up, we have Greta Christina again, with If You Weren’t an Atheist, What Would You Be?

Here, Greta asks if we can we find the good things in religion but without all the rubbish that goes with it. In doing so, she looks at all the major religions and some minor ones, and gives her personal opinions on them. This is well researched and nicely put together. A definite must-read.

Richard, at Philosophy, et cetera talks about Critical Values …and defends the value of rational disagreement, something I strongly agree with!

Ranaban in the article Brian May Not Like This…briefly talks about the slaughter of whales and why he thinks the suffering of animals should give them the right to not be harmed.

Next, is Reason and Capitalism with an excellent article entitled Cold Reason. I gave a big thumbs up to the monitor after reading this very brief but eloquent passage!

Skeptic’s Play presents a short essay explaining why life has Meaning Without God. From the article itself: “just because the universe is uncaring doesn’t mean we have to be. We may be invisible from just a few light-years away, but we’re not a few light-years away—we’re right here.”

Next, we have Shaun Connell again over at Reason and Capitalism with The Pursuit of Happiness.  I really like this short article, explaining what true happiness is from a Randian point of view; realising our values, with morality (based on reason) and reality (objective non-contradiction) as our permanent guides and checkpoints in achieving those goals, and therefore achieving happiness.

The Urban Monk treats us to a really interesting and quite contemplative article Love and Loneliness – Unravelling the Ego and Pride. This is an unusual submission for the Humanist Symposium but the sentiment is quite catching; self-love, pride, self-esteem, ego, from a non-theistic spiritual point of view.

Innovation Politics presents Democratizing Politics, which contrasts “typical” democracy that we’re used to today with a novel concept called “Open Politics”, which sounds quite revolutionary.

Get into the seasonal spirit with Letters From A Broad and Festive Carols for a Merry (Secular) Christmas and other Happy Holidays!

Atheist Revolution presents Responding to Anti-Atheist Bigotry. This top class article is best summed up by its own closing words: “Perhaps we should strive for a more balanced approach by increasing the proportion of offensive to defensive responses. The last thing we want to do is foster the already prevalent view that religious belief is somehow exempt from criticism. Atheism, when one understands what it is and what it is not, needs no defense. On the other hand, faith-based belief is simply indefensible.”

Atheist Ethicist presents a case for objective non-religious morality based on values and human desires. Read it here.

Finally, I present my own article Standing On The Shoulders of Giants. From the dawn of man through the ages and all the greats that have come and gone, I consider being alive in this modern era as a privilege akin to sitting at the feet of the masters of history, with no boundary on what we can learn, or what the human race can achieve.

 

Thanks to all for ‘attending’. This will probably be my last submission to the Humanist Symposium for the foreseeable future, but it was a privilege to host it, and thanks to Ebonmuse for some hand-holding through the process!

The next Humanist Symposium will be over at Faith In Honest Doubt on January 6^th, 2008. You can submit articles here.

Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants

A simple ribonucleic acid string replicates itself. Genes compete in a ruthless environment for selection. Simple, at first, and then more complex machines are constructed unconsciously by genes to further their survival. These survival machines reproduce and compete. Competition for sustenance and procreation forces genes to engineer better machines. These machines, very slowly over eons, increase in complexity. Some machine parts are phased out, some machine parts are phased in or upgraded, becoming interdependent on other parts. Some of these natural machines become very good at detecting and interacting with the world around them, and they process and store these experiences in a vast network of complex interrelated fibres and cells. In one variety of machine, the machine’s structure allows this plexus to increase in complexity and sophistication. The processing and analytic power of this machine’s encephalon steadily increases over time. Slowly, and at some temporally indiscernible juncture, something prodigious happened. Something that might have never happened before in the history of the universe, and something that is not guaranteed to happen again: this machine become aware of its own existence.

Each step of the way, the progress of life balances on the previous rung of the ladder just long enough to take another step. Life teeters on the edge of a branch, stretching precariously without slipping to just reach for the next one.

Everything that went before, (and a high price in lives was paid indeed), did not so much pave the way for progress, but provided a stepping block for the next generation. We move upwards, sometimes slipping, but if the blocks are high enough then even our fall only takes us down a few steps and not crashing to the very bottom.

From such ignoble beginnings has the human race came, and through what contumelious and opprobrious corridors have we had to, and are having to, walk!

But as we look behind us, back down the amaranthine staircase of the ages, we can still see people looking up at us. Look, squint, and see near the bottom: it is Lucy. A long way up I can see Plato, and then Aristotle. Further and further up we see, every now and then, a famous face. Look, there is Copernicus proving, (not for the first time) that the earth is not flat. Descartes is not long after, thinking himself into existence. Hobbes, Pascal, and the great Spinoza follow almost immediately, and next, holding his apple is Sir Isaac Newton who we see gives a huge leg-up to those that follow. Up and up we go, and it would be brusque not to give Berkeley, Hume and Kant a mention, although neither might be absolutely certain about your existence. (Yet, despite their scepticism, the staircase exists!)

And long overdue, Mary Wollstonecraft reminds us that woman have just as much a place on this illimitable staircase as men. Many great men and women follow, but one stands out. The next one we see in this temporal flight lays a cumbrous step before himself that all others will, and must, stand on, for this single step is so large and scopic it gives any who pass by on it the chance to peer over the edge, all the way down to the very first step and see the staircase forming. This ingenious individual is Charles Darwin. The faces and names come thick and first after the masterful Darwin, who elucidated to us the nature of the staircase itself!

The next step is one that was laid after its progenitor’s passing; how important Gregor Mendel’s work turned out to be. He is rightly called the father of modern genetics. How many great accomplishments and breakthroughs couldn’t have been made since, without this sturdy stone being laid?

Albert Einstein follows shortly after, changing the world with 5 characters, and rewriting the understanding of physics and spacetime brilliantly articulated by Newton only a few centuries earlier. Alan Turing, who arguable did more to win the Second World War than any other single individual, stands tall and proud with the modern computer revolution his everlasting legacy. Would that he had been born just a little later, and not have to suffer for the “crime” of being homosexual, a suffering that he decided to end himself with a cyanide-laced apple. A victorious Nazi-free Europe and an internet-dependant society bids you post-humus thanks, Alan.

Smashing the vacuous bricks that Hume and Kant laid, is Ayn Rand. Demonstrating the primacy of existence and an objective rational worldview, Rand set stones that many have bypassed. Perhaps she came before her time, or, as I suspect, she didn’t come early enough! At least she came at all however, and would that more stabilised their feet on her sturdy Objectivism.

As we look ever closer to our own time, the people on the following steps are but a handshakes’ distance away. But what exciting times we live in when the staircase grows and winds so fast. Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins are within talking range, but alas the former can hear us no longer. What the latter has to say about the wondrous step Darwin laid fascinates and awes us, and he will not shy away from exposing those who would jeopardise these beautiful advancements of society.

Next we have Stephen Hawking, who will give us a history of time, very briefly of course. A modern-day Einstein, a true genius, a transcendent thinker.

I see Christopher Hitchens standing very near me, and what a writer, debater, and thinker he is! I look around and see like-minded free thinkers and we exchange a knowing smile with Hitchens, glancing back down the Staircase of Ages at those who made it all possible.

And here we are. The times when repression and superstition totally ruled the world are over. Paying homage to Turing I can use my computer to learn what Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato wrote. I can understand exactly why there is life, and how it works, thanks to Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Gould, and Dawkins. I am free to seek out and associate with fellow open minds. We can enquire and reason for ourselves, but we can do it in light of all who have gone before. If all those listed above, and more, could come forward to the time of me and you, could fly suddenly or leap abruptly to our step, what incredibly envy they would have for us! It is not just the knowledge that mankind possesses today, it is the limitless access to knowledge that would have the Greats of yore salivating with covetousness.

My passions are numerous and include science, philosophy and sport. But each of these alone can be subdivided into vast and deep categories, each one impossible to master in a lifetime. Not so long ago I stumbled across articles on String Theory and Quantum Mechanics and I realised: I don’t know anything! If you’re anything like me, and indeed Socrates, all we know is the extent of our own ignorance. But perhaps we should take heart from the words of Hitchens that “This to me is still the definition of an educated person.”

But what interests me might not interest you. It doesn’t matter. The universe is too grand, nature too vicarious, and life too brief to even get to work on the iceberg. But even if people like us cannot directly get involved, we can watch and learn from those hammering away at the tip, whatever that particular knowledgeberg might be.

This is why we are lucky to be alive at the time we are. Never underestimate the potential you have to accomplish your goals in this day and age. Never take for granted the freedom of education and inquiry you have; many greater minds dithered in ignorance and withered in torture for what should be and is now, an inalienable human right. Never take for granted freedom of speech or your ability to be politically active.

We can learn about distant galaxies and the birth and death of our own universe. We can experiment with and understand the fundamental particles of the universe. We can be one of the incredibly rare people in the history of the world to say “I know where life came from”. We can virtually sit at the feet of all the experts throughout humanity and understand how and why. And we can be humbly confident that if we don’t have the answer, there is every reason to think we might one day. But even if we can’t, as Gotthold Lessing said, the search for truth is often more important than truth itself; humanity will “always and forever err in the process”.

All of human knowledge is in our past and present. We are here on the most recent and highest stair in time. How much farther indeed we can see, when standing on the shoulders of giants!

Objectivism and Me

For the past two months I’ve been reading a lot about Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. I’ve also had the pleasure of interacting with an Objectivist on his blog and over e-mail.

Immediately I was struck by how many viewpoints (political, philosophical, and ethical), resonated with me; I had held them explicitly or implicitly for a long time but was unable to articulate them or justify them properly. There were also many consequences of these viewpoints that disturbed me at first, especially political. However, as a free-thinker, consequences of truth do not bother me as much as truth itself.

I wanted to refrain from writing about Objectivism until I was knowledgeable enough to argue it properly; I have a responsibility to myself to make sure I know what I’m talking about. After being prompted by A Load of Bright though, I’ve decided to comment on it “as I go”, but I will avoid referring to myself as an Objectivist or debating the philosophy deeply for now. This is only fair to my readers and myself.

I have been very disappointed with how poor the quality of counter-arguments against Objectivism are. As well as reading about Ayn Rand, I have of course (to avoid confirmation bias) sought out opinions on Objectivism from non-Objectivists. Some of them were very balanced and generous. Some of them were blatantly hostile. But, for someone who has only been studying it for a month or two, I found I could already refute most of the nonsense they were saying. A common misrepresentation of Objectivism is: “every man for himself”, or “survival of the fittest”. This is false.

Objectivism is an entire philosophical system that accounts for knowledge, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. It is grounded on axioms of existence and sensory validity. Any attempts to deny these axioms involve their utilisation, which is self-refuting. From these, and the identity of man as a kind of being that acts volitionally, everything else follows.

The fundamental right, the only existing non-reducible right that exists, is man’s right over his own life. As a moral being, this is a necessary corollary of that status, otherwise it would be impossible for men to live together. Therefore, the politics of Objectivism are based on the realisation of the individual rights of men. The individual rights of men are non-negotiable, until and only if a man initiates the use of force against others; in doing so he has attempted to violate the rights of others and so forfeits his own.

I have come across people who reject the consequences of Objectivism; usually they appeal to an altruist or collectivist theory of ethics, or just emotion. In my limited experience talking about Objectivism, I’ve noticed these people find it hard (or impossible) to reject the premises of Objectivism, but will still disagree with the (usually) politic corollaries, not realising they’re blatantly contradicting themselves.

As I adopt more and more the philosophy of Objectivism, I am finding it harder and harder to identify myself as a Humanist. I disagree with the opinions of some humanists on a variety of issues (such as animals rights, environmentalism, and politics), and whilst Humanists do not necessarily have to agree on everything (it’s not a religion after all), it is some of the foundations of Humanism that I am at odds with, and I believe it is incomplete as a worldview. This will not stop me of course hosting the Humanist Symposium on 16^th December, which I volunteered for. But I thought I would talk about how my philosophy and politics are progressing, and the direction I am heading.

Finally, Objectivism is appealing to me for several reasons: it emphasises the necessity of rationality and logical thinking; it ennobles humans by forcing us to think for ourselves, and means that we must face the consequences of our actions; it treats men as adults that aren’t entitled to a free lunch or to parasitize off other people; it provides an epistemology and morality that are universal and objective; it dispenses with the nihilism of philosophical scepticism; and it respects individual rights to the core.

The Eschatology Ideology

Qiyamah, aharit ha-yamim, Final Judgement, Day of Purification, Ragnarok, the Apocalypse, Armageddon.

The phrases above all refer to the same general event: the end of the world.

One of the most dehumanising and potentially dangerous beliefs that virtually all religions, and certainly all monotheisms share, is the end of the world. Worse still, monotheism actively looks forward to the end of the world. Moreover, whether consciously or subconsciously, it looks to get our real human life out of the way as soon as possible.

I think there is something perverse about this belief, and there is no denying it: all monotheisms teach that this life is only temporary; a short sinful stop in a depraved world where the alternative to belief is nihilism, before we finally pass over to the next life where we will be rewarded forever and ever in paradise or tortured forever and ever in hell (disproportionate to say the least, would one think, given that eternity is infinite and our human lives are infinitesimal in comparison).

For this reason, monotheism devalues human life. It treats human nature like a curse, and strangles much happiness out of our existence with egregious circumscriptions on almost every facet of behaviour. The irony here is that the Original Lie told by Satan according to Genesis, is the one that all religions perpetuate: You positively will not die. I think there is something deeply opprobrious about telling people that which you do not know, and cannot possibly know; it is the worst kind of lie.

This life is all there is. That’s a fact. It’s a good a fact as the earth goes around the sun, and elephants cannot fly, more so indeed. (We might not like the idea, but there is no connection between wishful-thinking and truth.) If I had to confect a lie to take away what meaning this life has, make people waste and squander it, and remove as much delectation as possible, I would struggle to contrive a better one than to tell people that this life is not only the end, but it is actually a constant struggle against flagitious desires and a libidinous nature, all in the servile veneration of a galactic dictator. A struggle that, in comparison to the eternity that awaits you, is fugacious and meaningless. If I really believed that an eternity of paradise awaited me and fellow believers, (like I used to), I too would want this pitiful imperfect existence to hurry up and get over and done with! And herein is one of the problems: religion is anti-life. A true religious believer should not want to wait to shuffle off the mortal coil! But since this finite human life is all we will ever have, religion encourages people to waste it and wish for its end. What a deplorable tragedy.

But it gets worse. Not content with wishing for the end of life so that bountiful riches and joy can be realised, religion wishes not just for the end of a life, but all life. It awaits, what might euphemistically referred to, as the eschatological transformation; the End of Days, Armageddon.

The problem is not just that a belief in End Times is wholly false and plagiarised from other religions; all religious ideas about the end of the world are incredibly similar (for obvious reasons), it is that this belief is anti-human and dangerous in covert and overt ways.

Covertly, if one believes this miscreant old world is in the hands of sinners and is destined for judgement anyway, what is the point in trying to make it better? Why bother trying to help people if this is all part of a divine plan anyway, or the Cosmic Knight in Shining Armour is going to sweep in at the last minute and save the day anyway? There should be no need to worry about nuclear war; global warming; the exhaustion of fossil fuels; finding a cure for cancer; inventing new medicines that treat people and improve and prolong life; improving our lives with new technology; bettering yourself through personal and mental disciplines. This life is a one-stop supermarket where you’re only allowed to browse a tiny selection of what’s on offer, and you cannot leave the store without it anyway. This eschatological mindset encourages laziness and apathy on a grand scale. It is the very opposite of meliorism.

Overtly, this death cult of religion (to borrow from Chris Hitchens) which is a deserved obloquy for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, readily manifests its more dangerous side by those who sincerely believe the world is coming to an end, and actively want to bring that end about. From the terrorist hijackers of 9/11 who sincerely believed they were going to paradise, to the theocratic Iranian nation actively seeking nuclear weapons and the right-wing Christian fundamentalists in America who hope the signal for Armageddon is given with a mushroom cloud, religion has become a very real threat to human life on a grand scale and civilisation itself. Fundamentalists readily pray for the End to come, but it is now not impossible for some of them to acquire the means to make it happen. What could be more terrifying than a nuclear state that has no concept of mutually-assured destruction (like the aforementioned Iran), and worse still, would actively welcome it?

This is not scaremongering, this is how the world is. All it takes is one religious fanatic to possess two vital ingredients: a solid faith backed up by the words of his own holy book, and a nuclear weapon. Finding the first has never been a problem for the faithful. Finding the second has always been problematic, and we, as Western secular powers, should keep it that way.

The eschatology ideology is a pernicious immoral anti-human delusion that breeds laziness, nihilism, resentment, oppression, a longing for and glorification of death, and the actual and potential of mass suffering.

It doesn’t have to be this way though. Humanism is a philosophy that puts human beings and our temporary lives at the centre of matters, and lauds the ability and potential that we all have, and treats life as a rare precious gift, not to be wasted bowing down, praying, feeling guilty, or wishing it away, but embraced and respected, because it’s the only one we’ll have.

Atheist or Anti-Theist?

When I first started to self-identify as an atheist, I held several positions that I have since rejected. An example of one of these was the notion that science answers “how” questions and religion answers “why” questions. Although I was unaware of him at the time, I would have agreed with Gould’s non-overlapping magisterium. Now I don’t. I don’t actually believe religion has anything worthwhile to say on anything. Religion never shied away from making bold claims about the world when it was talking to an ignorant unscientific audience. If religion doesn’t overlap with science today it is only because the religious are rightly afraid to compete with science; a battle they have historically always lost. Some fundamentalists aren’t happy to remain on their side of the playground however; they actively undermine legitimate science and try to have their view of reality supersede any other. Finally, religion makes numerous claims that are incompatible with scientific knowledge. Some theists rationalise these incongruities by appealing to symbolism or non-literalism. That’s their choice, but I don’t think you can justify every contradiction, and indeed if religion was true, why would you have to?

Another position that I used to tacitly hold is that religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. That is after all, one of my universal principles for living: do as you wish, as long as no one is harmed. In theory, if religion also lived by the same precepts, I would have little problem with it. I don’t agree with everyone’s worldview, but I would hate to see a world where any worldview was imposed. In my ideal world, free speech, free inquiry, and freedom of belief (or non-belief) would be permanent inalienable human rights. The reason I am so opposed to religion is because it embodies everything that civilised society should not want to see realised on any scale.

I see no reason to believe in anything supernatural, which obviously includes god. That makes me an atheist. But what about anti-theism? You don’t have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist strictly speaking. One could fully believe in a god and also be opposed to him and his regime. One assumes that the character of Satan is an anti-theist. Being an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an anti-theist either. I don’t know many atheists personally who self-identify as anti-theists, but this might just be because they don’t know of, or like to use, the expression. I will explain why I’m an anti-theist.

First, I’d like to point out that there doesn’t seem to be one theist who doesn’t dislike the idea of what they believe in. This may seem like a rather obvious point, but is subtly powerful. There are many facts about the world we accept. Some of them we like and some of them we dislike. Some we are glad are the case, and some we wish were different. But we accept it. I don’t like the fact that I will die, but I accept it. I don’t like losing, but it happens (occasionally). I don’t like having to pay so much in taxes, but it’s a fact of life. A nihilist may consider the ephemeral nature of life as inferring that life is meaningless, whereas a humanist would infer that life is even more precious because it is so brief. Isn’t it rather convenient that there isn’t one theist who believes in a god and doesn’t wish it were true? If it were so obvious that a god existed, why are the only ones who believe in him those who wish it were also true?

The following are notions that all monotheisms hold. From Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Chapter 15, page 205:

· Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and credulous

· The doctrine of blood sacrifice

· The doctrine of atonement

· The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment

· The imposition of impossible tasks and rules

I am not just an atheist. I’m an anti-theist because I am strongly opposed to the very foundations of religion itself.

Religion lies to people about how the world really is. Where it doesn’t lie, it actively makes claims that it cannot possibly know, which is as much the same thing. It befouls the minds of children (and in many instances mutilates the genitalia of children) with falsehoods and superstitions.

Religion dictates that sacrifices, of some sort of other but nearly always blood, are a necessary part of a believer’s life.

Religion decrees that we must keep atoning for our very nature constantly; that we are wicked, licentious, and depraved, and that our natural desires and bodily functions are shameful and something be repressed. Religion has always criminalised homosexuality and any sexual freedom. Religion has historically been one of the greatest oppressors of women in all times.

Religion offers what it has no right to offer: forgiveness of and for another person. It offers the ultimate reward that it has no possible way to know of. It also threatens eternal torture in the most sadistic and execrable way for those who will not accept the shotgun offer it proposes.

Finally, religion demeans humans by demanding the impossible and then condemning us for not living up to its own warped notions of perfection. There are ridiculous restrictions on diet, entertainment, language, and association. Restrictions on not only who you can have sex with but also in what sexual positions you may copulate.

One or all of the above are symptomatic of all religions. They are the antithesis of the most noble and enlightened concepts that humanity has to offer: tolerance of humans, freedom for humans, respect for humans.

Not only do I not believe in a god, I am glad that the god of monotheism doesn’t exist. Imagine living in a world where the god of religion existed. It would be like living in a theocratic police state, where you can be convicted for the crime of thought; virtually the very definition of totalitarian. Where the entire purpose in your life is to serve and worship and venerate another being; where you owe everything you have to a galactic dictator who you never elected, and you’re born into a system of total mental and physical control that you had no say in choosing.

The central figure in this eternal Dominion is a being who apparently knows you before you were even born, who watches you every single minute of every day of your life, and whose control over you reaches beyond death! As Hitchens observes, even in human totalitarian regimes, or in Orwell’s 1984, at least you can die and escape the regime. With religion, not even death is an escape, and indeed for any supposed crime you commit, an afterlife of eternal torture awaits you.

In this theocratic regime, freedom of speech would be as unknown as the theory of evolution. Who you choose to fall in love with, and how you choose to make love, would be under constant surveillance on penalty of death.

In this regime, you have to accept responsibility for the crimes of others that you had no part of, incur their bloodguilt, and unconditionally receive the only way to be absolved of this guilt: accepting the blood sacrifice by torture of another person that you had no say in at all.

No thank you, I don’t want it. I reject the very absurd notion of original sin; that I have somehow transgressed for someone else’s actions; this is the very opposite of justice. I reject the exculpation offered to me that was supposedly paid for by a process of human sacrifice to appease the blood thirst of the Divine One; a sacrifice that was necessarily the murder of an innocent man, something I would have objected to anyway.

And if I reject this barbaric offer, am I free to live my life my own way and die as all people must? No. If I refuse the “gift” I never asked for and never wanted, I can be promised an eternal live roasting.

This is why I positively reject religion and theism. As a thinking human being I could not, in good conscience, be party to such an inhuman and cruel regime, and I could not worship or love such a dictator. Humans beings with ethics, self-respect, and intelligence, should refuse to submit to any theocracy. That is why the necessity is not just of atheism, but anti-theism.

Christopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath

I’d like to say a few things about two very prominent people in the modern debate over religion and anti-theism.  They are Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath.

I’ve been meaning to write about Hitchens for a while now, but after watching his recent debate with McGrath on YouTube, I wanted to comment on both of them.  (This article will be more effective if you watch all 11 parts of the debate first.)

Christopher Hitchens is a true intellectual.  After reading God Is Not Great (twice) and watching almost of all his debates, I see a man who very much knows what he’s talking about.  He has a deep reservoir of literary, philosophical, cultural, and political knowledge to draw upon.  He speaks with authority, and import.  One of his fears is one that should never be realised: being boring.  Listening to him speak at length is almost mesmerising.  It is, for me, fascinating and intriguing.

The reason for this is actually quite simple: Hitchens is direct.  He doesn’t mince his words.  He doesn’t beat around the bush.  He answers the questions put to him.  You know where he is coming from.  Even if you don’t agree with him, you can never accuse him of shirking a question or challenge.  He doesn’t make unsupported or vacuous assertions.  He backs each and every statement up with logical reasons or a reference to a historical or modern event.  His cultural experience and familiarity with other peoples and cultures is matched only by his wit.  When you listen to him, you feel like he imparting real wisdom.  He communicates very effectively.

McGrath is an unusual character.  There is something almost appealing about McGrath, and I think I can best describe it as innocence.  He is probably a very nice person in everyday life.  I can imagine myself liking McGrath if I heard him talk about something other than religion.  Unfortunately, this is his chosen specialist subject, so it is this that I will judge him on.

I do not hear McGrath speak with authority.  He speaks as one giving a sermon, than a speech.  He does not argue, he preaches.  It is as though, for McGrath, just to be on stage with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins is the victory in itself.  He is there because he claims to know the unknowable.  Whereas Hitchens and Dawkins are experts in their field, and do not waste a single word, most of McGrath’s words are a waste of time, and his expertise is in theology, a topic which should not be considered a field in its own right.

One of McGrath’s problems it that he simply doesn’t answer the questions; he doesn’t address the issues, he avoids them.  If he doesn’t know he’s doing it, he is deluded and mentally compartmentalised.  If he does know he’s doing it, his skills are wasted as a theologian: he should be a politician.

And this is when he avoids the issues and doesn’t give meaningful answers, (which is most of the time).  When he does attempt a proper answer it gets even worse.  He proceeds from the assumption that the bible is god’s word.  He talks about the authority of Jesus to speak and say the things he did.  He misses the rather glaring point that why should Jesus need any authority to speak good advice and brotherly love.  Are the egregiously factual and historical contradictions of the NT unknown to him?

I think McGrath sees public debate as a forum to preach his personal beliefs instead of answering the problems of his faith.

At one point he admits that he doesn’t recognise the charge of celestial dictator levelled at god by Hitchens, but can see where Hitchens is coming from.