QUINING QUINTESSENCE.

i'm back!

well, as i indicated might be the case, i haven't had much time or inclination to update my blog in quite a while. still, sometimes i've thought about my neglected blog, and have even had a couple of topic ideas surface in my mind like bloated corpses in the "lake of stew and of whiskey too". :D

on the backburner

i do remember that i wanted to discuss the subject of authority a little: specifically, various criteria people might use in deciding whether to accept/adhere to authority, and instances in which, for a variety of reasons, some people fail to apply their own criteria when dealing with certain claims of authority...by the way, i just googled the phrase "apply the criteria", and out of 19,000,000 results, the 2ND one had this to say:

"any time is the right time to start considering the information system trustworthiness. so, let's jump into the criteria set."

now, THAT'S a sentiment i can get behind! 8-|

-------------

moving on...

anyway, i'd love to get around to that subject, but i'd like to treat it with the thoroughness it deserves, or at least some level of depth, so i gotta get my ducks in a row first. in the meantime however, i do have a little nugget: so, without further ado, let's get back to business. it just so happens that this morning i was inspired by a muslim fellow whom i occasionally correspond with on skype to write a detailed response to a rebuttal he gave me involving the good ol' "free will" catch phrase. i would call it a theodicy, but it really wasn't even an attempt to defend the nature of god itself, nor even any of the supposed attributes of his particular god. as far as i could tell, it was just another dodge to get away from the ugly truth that the mandates barked by "holy" texts sometimes(and sometimes quite often) lead directly to irresponsible or flat-out immoral behavior - and in many cases(particularly in the abrahamic religions), they explicitly command it!

dodging and dealing

i hope you can see from the ensuing chatlog that i'm not just trying to give this guy a hard time by insulting his beliefs or insinuating that he's "dodging" the issue. the simple fact is that these issues really ARE hard to grapple with, and doubly so when you're on logical lockdown, squinting through the keyhole of a restrictive religion, particularly one as blatantly barbaric as any of the abrahamic religions(whose namesake, of course, is celebrated by adherents of all three of these monotheistic religions which can't seem to agree on pretty much anything else under the sun, besides monotheism - and even THAT is being stretched by the christians' "trinity" - but, speaking of sons, they DO all seem to be on the same page regarding the nobility of being instantly willing to brutally slay one's OWN son. the only point of contention in this case is WHICH son it was, isaac or ishmael - obviously a distinction FAR more important than any mere moral qualms anyone might feel at the whole IDEA of the thing). actually, it's an ironic coincidence that i chose the phrase "on the same page", because that's EXACTLY where they are, in a literal sense. now, some theists love to ask people(especially anyone of a secular persuasion) the source from which they derive their "morals"...well, ladies and gentlemen, here you have it: abrahamic "morality", straight from the "source"!

clearing the air

as is clearly evident from my reactions in the chatlog, this is NOT the first time he and i have had a dead-end "discussion" of this nature; in fact, this one was much briefer than previous ones, since he had to go. but still, for some reason i was left with a firm conviction that
i should try and clear the air once and for all, tell him my honest perceptions of the situation, and ask if he even wanted to have a serious discussion. if not, then it would save us both a lot of time and toil if he just told me straight up. :D hey, wow, maybe it was a subconscious recollection of the insights i gained from some great youtube vids about transactional analysis by the user theramintrees(highly recommended)!

the "source" of yet another post about the "source" of morals?

it's interesting that this post has the same source of inspiration as my first one: a response to a theist's accusations about atheists' lack of morals! i think morality is an important issue to discuss, first and foremost in and of itself; but also because we shouldn't allow such accusations and assumptions to continue and spread misinformation that might lead to people being treated as second-class citizens because of their beliefs(don't worry, i'm not going all "anti-atheist persecution complex" on ya) ;) i also think it's important that everyone should be able to identify his or her ethical standards, not for other people's benefit, but for their own. the main thing is that people talk about ethical concepts in general, and that they know it's ok to talk about them outside of a church or a courthouse.

sometimes, the best defense is not to offend. sometimes...

in that first post it was easy to be diplomatic, because i was trying to discuss an issue that can be dealt with scientifically, without any overtly offensive stuff(though apparently science does offend some theists). however, in this post, i'm aiming at the other team. i hesitate to go this route, because i've noticed that a great number of theists(and atheists, or any people, for that matter) who have a weak or indefensible position resort to the only option available: offense. perfect example: creationists(might as well just call them "anti-evolutionists", see how THEY like being labeled as a "non-something", like atheists :P). but the plain and simple fact is that some theists(some people in general), for whatever reason, just don't like it when you talk science stuff to them. so it's time for a slightly different approach.
the title of this section is a good example of the whole point i'm trying to make: it's never a good idea to assign universal strategies to life, unless they have been rigorously tested and inspected for possible flaws, loopholes, etc. until then, it should be understood that they are qualified statements, to be used "sometimes" or "depending on the circumstances", etc. even the oft-touted "golden rule"(which confucius said long before the bible) only really works on the level of individuals. on the level of societies, you need to grow SOME balls, or you just won't survive. and now, as i was saying about the title of this section: "the best defense is not to offend" is a brilliant phrase, a wise strategy, and rife with interesting ethical permutations. but is it ALWAYS true? in the right hands, a powerful piece of advice like that can be used as a great force for good in the world. but in the wrong hands, it can be a used as a warning for people not to fight injustice or oppression. i wonder what pope pius xii was thinking during WWII...but i won't get too deep into that issue right now; it's actually somewhat shrouded in mystery(a vatican shroud of secrecy, of course), but i suggest you do some research. one pertinent fact is that he never excommunicated any nazi; he did excommunicate some german catholics, but only because they supported cremation as an alternative to burial. once again, that goes to show you where religious morality lies. this isn't an isolated instance: there's a trend, particularly in the catholic church, to (apparently)place a high importance on the treatment of anyone or anything that is the remants of a person, or a precursor to a person, but NOT a living person. i'm sure they'll tell you they assign "equal" importance, but surely they notice the negative effect their doctrines have on living, breathing people who are capable of experiencing pain, fear, love...ok, so whadda we got here...no compunctions about excommunicating people because of having a different funeral practice; that's small potatoes. how about abortion? ok, this is a tough issue, but it boils down to suffering: we want to reduce suffering in the world, so we can't force women to have babies. imagine if abortion were illegal everywhere in the world...how many more hungry mouths would be born every day in squalor and misery? how many more babies would be left in dumpsters at high school proms? how many children of rape and incest would be born to terrified mothers who would be damaged for the rest of their lives? yes, when an abortion is performed, it is the taking of a human life; i'm not disputing that. but what matters here is the capacity for suffering: fetuses without a brain can't suffer. their mothers can. and, when those fetuses DO grow a brain, many of them WILL suffer the results of being "forced" to be born into a family that wasn't prepared for them, IF a family even exists! now, maybe if the church paid a little more attention to making life better for people AFTER they were born, i would be more open to arguments in favor of forcing EVERYBODY to live, but the principle of the mother's suffering and her reproductive rights would always be a last bastion of morality for me in this issue. like i said in my first post, "suffering sucks", and suffering is what matters here. i do recall now that i mentioned semen in a dish or something like that :D which brings us to the NEXT bold step into the metaphysical world! stem cell research! forbidden by the church, because the rights of some cells in a dish supercede those of people who are alive and suffering. and here, once again, they might say "not superceding, but equal". this is a cop-out. what they are doing is tantamount to saying "sorry everybody, but we have to allow these diseases to run rampant and continue to let you all suffer, because we are the valiant defenders of...cells." but wait, it gets even MORE ridiculous! they don't even care if you're a bonafide blastocyst! you can just be a SPERM cell, and they still place a GREAT importance on your...uh...life.

and what is this all based on? the doctrine of the "soul", which is based on...

surprise!

more doctrine.

the point of the pike

anyway, even though i'm using a little offense in this post, i still think i have some good points: in this post, i mainly deal with what i see as the deleterious effects of "morality via belief", as opposed to morality via direct conscious understanding. i'm not suggesting that people who derive morality from belief lack a conscious understanding of it, but in my opinion it's quite easy for someone in such a position to become intellectually lazy and stop searching for answers, and quite often even DENY the evidence of their conciousness, sacrificing their conscience on the bloody altar of their faith. in fact, i guess when you come right down to it, in a psychological sense all morality must be at least partially rooted in belief(but also in innate personality traits). for example, i actually fundamentally believe rape and murder are wrong; i don't just judge it to be the most prudent ethical analysis. and in the case of rape, in particular, it's simply an innate part of my personality that particularly loathes the idea of it(though i feel strongly about murder, etc. too). so beliefs do play a strong role in enforcing and guiding our morality. the problem with most organized theistic belief, however, is that it has the dubious distinction of being the type of belief that is considered not to be open to question; and this consideration comes not only from within, where criticism is overtly threatened with eternal punishment(is that "moral"?), but also from without, where sometimes people give you a "tut tut" or a "tsk tsk" for not "respecting others' beliefs". if you ask any die-hard sports fan(who also might happen to be religious) if he thinks he should "respect the beliefs" of the rival fans, you'd probably get a very interesting(and descriptive) answer. now, i certainly realize that sportsfandom is not on the same level as devotional/spiritual beliefs(though i know some sports fans who might beg to differ). indeed, i do think beliefs should be classified, and certain ones shouldn't be crassly insulted(such as a man's belief that his wife is beautiful). actually, i think crass insults never accomplish anything. but legitimate criticism(yes, and even lampoonery) should always be allowed, and even welcomed! for shouldn't we welcome any opportunity to improve ourselves, even if it comes in the form of a rebuke or insult?

a quintessential quandary?

above, i mentioned that charming tale from a simpler time...the inspiring account of abraham's "devotion to god" (oh, yeah, and his, uh, staunch - or should i say RAUNCH? - "family values"). even a cursory examination of that, or any other of a myriad horror stories from the bible and other religious texts suggests that there just might be a major disconnect between what is generally considered to be ethical and what is "divinely decreed" to be ethical. with this in mind, it's not hard to imagine that a serious analytical treatment of ethics might well pose a bit of a quandary for a person who is accustomed to having his morality spoon-fed to him like so much baby food(but in a much more condescending yet ominous manner). at this point, you might ask why i would say "quintessential quandary"(besides the fact that i love alliteration) :P well, it's definitely a bit of a doozy, but perhaps not quintessential(though i would argue that any quandary producing confusion about morality is very serious - a disastrous result of it is referenced at the very beginning of the chatlog below)...rather, it seems the main culprit responsible for this quandary is an obsession with the IDEA of quintessence: specifically, the notion that some "perfect, quintessential morality" exists out there somewhere(yikes!) and that it was authored by a "perfect, quintessential entity" (double yikes! - google "euthyphro dilemma"), AND that this entity gave us some vague, contradictory(and often quite shocking and gruesome) clues about the nature of this morality in a "perfect, quintessential book" that was "revealed" to a tiny group of people, long ago, far away, in a different language, with no archaeological evidence supporting any of the claims, and no internally consistent evidence supporting divine authorship (triple yikes! plese tell me you're joking!) AAAND, that if you don't find this book(like, say, if you don't live in a country where people believe in it), AND believe every word it says(even though it contradicts itself in many places), AND agree to forfeit your personal responsibility and joyously take part in vicarious redemption through human blood sacrifice...ETC. ETC. ETC. then you will suffer the most unimaginable torture and pain and suffering for ETERNITY. (quadruple yikes! now i KNOW you're joking!) :P obviously, that part about redemption was specific to christianity, but that's just one example among many...indeed, it appears quite clear that many theists don't really examine the internal consistency of their OWN belief system, let alone consider the nature of ethical systems as a whole! in fact, it seems like a good number of the theists who actually DO critically examine moral dilemmas are not just theists, but theoLOGIANS! and yet, as the somewhat oxymoronic title suggests, theologians(at least those with some personal investment in a particular belief system) are forced to waste much of their time spinning their intellectual wheels, concocting hypothetical theodicies for hypothetical gods to solve a hypothetical contradiction which the unsupported belief in such hypothetical gods produced in the first place! (and yes, i say the "problem of evil" is merely a hypothetical contradiction, because it's predicated on the supposition that there actually IS an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity somewhere out there - however, if such a being did exist, the problem of evil would be a bonafide contradiction)

a devil of a dilemma

so, here we have a devil of a dilemma: 1) subscribe to an authoritarian doctrine which is full of bald assertions, and has little to no basis in logic and no inherent demonstrable benefit(besides a "warm fuzzy feeling" many people can just as easily get from eating a big, hot, juicy cheezboiguh), OR 2) admit that your personal beliefs may not be the ULTIMATE answer, and after all, they are simply YOUR personal beliefs which you conveniently assign to an all-powerful being, but which are really just an amalgam of stuff you've been indoctrinated with by people who assign THEIR beliefs to an all-powerful being, as well as some of your own personality mixed in. so yes, take hope! there is still some of your personality left! in fact, there is PLENTY! that precious morality you speak of as if it were given to us has been inside you all along, waiting to be discovered! but that's all it CAN do. it can only wait. YOU have to be the one to make the first move.

totalitarian tenacity

as i'm sure you know, fighting the good fight for the rights of sperm cells and disputing things like biblical genealogy and who-did-what, who-said-what-to-whom, and other equally insipid pursuits isn't the only thing these abrahamic hams get all pig-headed about...they just love to lay it on thick when they're hammin' it up about morals, and many of them go out of their way to claim that they have exclusive rights to the origins, intellectual property, manufacture, marketing, distribution, consumption, disposal, and subsequent "sanitation engineering" of morality! hey, speaking of exclusive rights to morality(and pig-headed abraHAMic hams), who's bright idea was it to declare pork immoral??? don't you be tryin' to deny me my bacon cheezboiguh! :@ as the previous example clearly shows, this is what happens when your beliefs(or the scriptures you believe IN) are not based in logic and reason, and are full of arbitrary commands and rituals(making it seem like going to church is a more complicated procedure than working on a space station). it gets to the point where trying to keep the moral high ground on a level playing field is an uphill battle(pun intended, no apology submitted) :P so many theists have resorted to sneaky, devious, underhanded methods even outright totalitarian methods. i mean hey, why not? totalitarianism is what most religions are ALL about! it's just like in that book; you know, the one about the bleak, depressing society where nobody had a reason to live, and they were always being watched every minute of every day by a stern, unrelenting dictator who demanded their adoration and supplication, and they weren't even allowed to THINK something that was forbidden by the leader...oh, yeah, must be the bible! oh wait, it was 1984 - of course, how silly of me! the writers of the bible could never hope to be as imaginative as george orwell! anyway, check it out: sure, big brother COULD have taken the time to clearly explain to the populace exactly why it was necessary to go to war with eastasia instead of eurasia, and then put it to a democratic vote, but propaganda and brainwashing is SO much easier! and it saves valuable tax dollars! nobody likes paying TAXES, right? and people want to feel SECURE! they want to know EXACTLY who the enemy is, and it has to be simple! they don't want to have to understand complicated politics and stuff like that! see a parallel here? well, i hope not.

the "ultimate" upshot

anyway, i really should wrap this up...basically, all i'm saying is that while the temptation to succumb to a belief in quintessences and "ULTIMATE" things may be great, such beliefs have a strong capacity to do great harm...it may be nice for YOU to imagine a world where everything good comes from some thing called "god" and everything evil comes from some thing called "satan"...it's the kind of drama that can be played out in the fantasies of a child, and as children, we all had great fun imagining and enacting those epic struggles between good and evil. and even as adults, it might still be tempting to believe in quintessences which, if only we could discover, would be our oracles, our magic 8-balls, our psychics, our answer-machines, our ultimate guideposts which we could simply follow and never have to think at all...but hey, people...this is the real world. things aren't black and white. grow up. use your OWN mind, discover your OWN capacity for profound ethical reasoning, and REVEL in it. feel pride, and don't you DARE feel shame at being proud of who you are: you're not a "fallen creation" that has to grovel at the feet of some whacko who is angry at having created you(poorly, in his opinion). you are a rational, reasonable, thinking human being. with MORALS!

and now, before i forget, here's that chat for your amusement.
in fact, i'll post that first, and then i'll post this.

peace,
-b