What are morals? Are they relative values? Are they subjective or are they objective? Where do we get them from?
Morals are (sometimes) codified criteria by which we decide what is good and bad, right and wrong.
Morals are relative because they vary from culture to culture, time period to time period and are also situational. An Aztec would have considered it a good thing to be sacrificed and to have their heart cut out. Slavery was considered morally acceptable up until mid-way through the 19th century, and isn’t today. We would be more lenient with someone with someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed their starving family over someone who stole diamonds purely for personal gain.
Even these are relative, there are bound to be people who disagree with me even on these.
Are they subjective or objective? Given that they’re relative as we’ve already established and given that people’s opinions and reactions differ it is obvious that they are subjective. Even if we reduce it down to the level of ‘what’s good for humans?’ in the way Sam Harris has tried to, or in the way utilitarian or epicurean systems have tried to, that’s still only applicable to humans (or given the evidence from other primates, some of them too). If a snake, a lion or any other creature with a different evolutionary history was intelligent enough to codify a moral system then we would expect their conception of right and wrong to be very different indeed.
Where do we get them from? The evidence would suggest evolutionary psychology being where. Instincts and behaviours can be passed on biologically as well as socially. We see that in the behaviours of all manner of creatures, many of which are quite complex and cannot reasonably be considered to have been passed on culturally. We also see natural variation on morality within humans, though we only recognise its negative extremes (sociopathy/psychopathy). Genetics are a reasonable predictor of where someone will fall in allegiance to political parties. Most of human contention in politics and in personal relationships seems to be about this tension between selfishness and altruism, though even selfishness is excused as an appeal to naturalism (Randian Objectivism, trickle-down economics, the invisible hand of the market).
I think of morality as existing in three layers (foundation at the bottom):
Individual: Our own moral decisions from experiences, thought etc. A personal code of ethics. Nurture: The moral codes and behaviours instilled in us by our culture, parents and education. Nature: Our inherited, evolutionary moral sense.
The higher ones on the chart can override those lower on the chart.
For example, our instinct might be to provide care for someone in need. Our received notions of morality might override this by telling us that someone got themselves into trouble or somehow deserves what is happening to them. Our individual, personal sense of ethics might override this by leading us to make exceptions for friends or people we think are ‘the deserving poor’.
What hope, then, of finding any kind of universal morality?
Well, none.
There is hope of finding a human moral system, or multiple human moral systems that work though. There will be some things that are natural and universal to humans but there may be multiple ways of getting to them. The idea of ‘least harm’ and ‘most gain’ is a good guide, as is accurate information upon which to make decisions. Any moral system must have room to flex, to deal with situations, exceptions to bend and change with new information.
Utilitarianism and epicureanism are an obvious place to start as they measure relatively objective factors. We can test things and judge their results. Thereby finding our way to things that work, much in the same way we might seek to find a new design of wing. Of course, we cannot turn this into dogma, we would need to constantly reassess, explore and test as we would in any other field.
There’s hope, but the old way of thinking needs to be torn down first. Intellect needs to overcome ideology, faith and black and white thinking.
Women’s reproductive rights are, quite rightly, a major issue. Autonomy over one’s own body, sexuality and reproduction is incredibly important and attempts to restrict or ban abortion are an infringement on human rights. Those who are against abortion typically cite irrational reasons – religion – for opposing it while rationalists, almost always, support a woman’s right to choose.
But what about a man’s reproductive rights?
Specifically, I’m talking about parental rights and responsibilities.
If a woman gets pregnant she has several choices.
Abortion.
Giving the child up for adoption.
Parenthood.
The man has absolutely no say whatsoever in the matter and whatever decision the woman makes he is saddled with.
Obviously there are biological concerns here. Only women can carry children – at the moment. There is no way to safely transfer a pregnancy to a surrogate and even then similar issues can come to apply. Any attempt at applying fairness and gender equality must here, as anywhere else, bow to the demands of nature.
Ethically we cannot demand a woman carry to term a child that she does not want.
Ethically we cannot force a woman to have an abortion she does not want.
The man involved cannot, therefore, be afforded the privilege of dictating what a woman does with her own body and the potential human being inside her. We can only, then, extend a man’s reproductive rights outside of the sphere of directly affecting a woman’s body. As such a man can only be afforded reproductive freedom in one way.
A legalistic abortion.
In the event of an unwanted pregnancy the man would have the option to give up all rights and responsibilities to the child. He would have no visitation rights, no involvement and no financial burden. This is not a new idea, dating back to 1998, and it is one that has been picked up on by Father’s and Men’s Human rights groups. It’s even been – tentatively – tested in court (Dubay Vs Wells). It didn’t go to the Supreme Court and the excuse for not upholding it was concern for the child, the same language used to defend constrictions on abortion.
As things stand this is the only way to even slightly redress the balance when it comes to reproductive autonomy between the genders. Yes, the withdrawal of support will increase pressure on the woman and may influence her eventual choice but there remains a choice, whereas the man has no choice whatsoever at present. If the child is born, against his wishes, he’s on the hook for 18+ years supporting a child that he never wanted to and in all likelihood a woman he didn’t intend to support. The negative impact on him is considerable and has even driven men to suicide.
It is not a perfect solution, but then nor is the current situation. There are issues and problems, but then there always are. These would need to be discussed (Who will pay to look after the child? When is the cut-off date? What if the pregnancy is kept secret or isn’t realised? What if the man changes his mind or the child wants to know who they are?) The starting point, however, and one that is necessary is that rights between men and women should be as equal as possible and this is the only way to pursue that just end.
What has been disturbing, when discussing this idea, is the arguments coming from women – and men – who are very pro women’s rights and abortion in this context, but are steadfastly against extending even an abridged version of those rights to men. Women, even progressive, feminist women, seem shocked and appalled by the idea that a man should not be forced to look after an unwanted child. Many of the arguments given against the idea echo the kind of shaming tactics used by the religious right against abortion. Arguments that one should simply abstain from sex if you don’t want a child and so forth.
This is a shame and a stark example of where feminism diverges from egalitarianism, prioritising women’s rights over those of their male counterparts. It’s also an example of where we are forced to admit the biological differences between the genders and how they might have bearing on ethics, law and equality.
Asghar Bukhari is an interesting chap, a relatively moderate Muslim who has a good way with words and doesn’t appear to be afraid of calling ‘bullshit’ on any particular side in any debate. Not that I agree with him on anything and everything, maybe 50% on a good day, but nonetheless, he writes well and it makes you think.
This article made me think. It’s about how Islam is portrayed, historical context and a number of other things. I want to address some of what he says here.
The first is the story of Western political elites. Their story is about Islam. They tell you that Islam (or if they can’t be honest ‘ Islamism’), is a threat to the world, that this medieval religion is violent and barbaric, a faith that leads to violence and one that the West must take action against in order to defend itself. It is a story that inevitably leads to a clash of civilizations.
I am both sympathetic to the point that the political and business elites will exploit anything to make a buck and flex their muscles and unsympathetic to the idea that Islam is, somehow, completely blameless. As an atheist and anti-theist I believe that all religion is a threat to the world. In the west I don’t think Islam is as big a problem as it has been presented to be (as compared with Christianity, especially in the USA) but it is a real and growing problem. It is a bigger problem than numbers would suggest because it is strident, militant and uncompromising. Christianity and Judaism have been ground down into a more liberal form by The Renaissance, Enlightenment and secularism in a way that Islam has not (Turkey, perhaps, being somewhat of an exception to varying degrees down the years).
Islam is a violent faith, many of its practices and beliefs are barbaric and anti-human. This is also true of Judaism and Christianity, but they choose to ignore or minimise those parts most of the time. Islam, it seems, at best tries to excuse them. You can argue that these areas (child marriage, female oppression, non/religious oppression, genital mutilation, honour killings, wife-beating, murdering homosexuals and apostates) are down to culture or a ‘wrong’ interpretation of Islam but they are very widely held on an individual and national basis and are a problem.
None of which changes the fact that the powers that be have exploited Islam as the new bogeyman in order to perpetuate a mentality and militarism that really has no place in the post Cold War era. There are threats – nuclear proliferation and terrorism – but these are overstated and, more importantly, made worse by the people who claim they’re protecting us. I wouldn’t trust an Iranian Supreme Leader with access to the bomb in the context of a belief in an afterlife any more than I was comfortable with George ‘God told me to do it’ Bush with his finger on the button. It also doesn’t change the horrific human rights abuses ongoing because of Islam (or in the name of Islam if you prefer).
Muslims also tell a story, and it also involves Islam. This is the one that could get you killed. They tell a story of an American Empire pushed by Israel and its lobby and old European hatreds into yet another war against Muslims. In their story the West had been waging wars to uphold the manufactured borders across the Muslim world and maintained them by propping up ruthless dictators. The resulting deaths and broken lives now measured in their millions.
American pseud0-imperialism is also a problem and as a Brit I wish our government would stop going along with everything they do, but our democracy is ailing and unrepresentative and most people are at the point where they simply don’t care any more. So what can one do?
I refuse, however, as an individual who just happens to be white and to be British by accident of geography, to be held accountable for the criminal actions of my government. The operations in Afghanistan were – at least – slightly justified but other actions undertaken by the coalition were not. The war in Iraq was illegal under international law and I make no bones about that.
Israel is a complicated issue but the fact is that there are people there now and we have to deal with the situation as it is. Religion complicates this matter horribly and makes it hard for people to compromise. Any solution is going to have to be based on sharing, in the manner of Northern Ireland, a glacial process towards mutuality. It’s that or genocide one way or the other. This would be so much easier if religion hadn’t gotten involved.
The West is unlikely to abandon Israel without something extremely major happening, largely because of guilt over the events of WWII but also because they are surrounded by enemies using extremely worrying rhetoric and have strategic value. Plus, you know, they’re just people like everywhere else in the world. Separate from their government and its actions.
What makes me wary of this narrative is that it is a) not entirely accurate and b) plays into anti-semitism and paranoia about Jews. In discussions with even seemingly moderate Muslims the conspiracy theories run rife (including 9/11 inside job conspiracies) and it’s not that unusual to run into someone retelling the blood libel or referencing the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s all a bit uncomfortably 1930s. Of course, my sympathy for Israel is tempered by the fact that they seem to have learned nothing about the treatment of others from their own harsh treatment and the plight of Palestine is always heartbreaking.
Black lists are complied, previously apolitical institutions like Universities and the Charity Commission are used to spy on and intimidate Muslims into silence. If that failed, calling them ‘extremists’ was a catch-all and could smooth the way to silencing them by putting them in prison or house arrest, ASBO’s, press vilification, black mail and harassment by the intelligence services. The power structure was guaranteed public support, they had been taught to fear these ‘buzz words’ surprisingly even Muslims were silent — no one after all wanted to be seen defending an ‘extremist’.
There are problems the other way too. Asghar slipped into racial language a couple of times in the article describing actions as being ‘white’ rather than actions of government. Similarly there is an extremely stifling atmosphere when it comes to critical examination of Islam. If it’s not fear of the – often violent – backlash from Muslims it’s fear of being branded a ‘racist’, ridiculous when you’re criticising a religion. Of particular concern to me of late is the aggressive nature of Muslim creationism which, while decades behind the rhetoric of Christian creationism seems to have a much tighter grip on Muslim youth (if such a term can legitimately be used). This is a concern in the west where we want more people in STEM roles and should be of enormous concern in Islamic nations because it will be contributing to holding back progress and development in those nations.
And these men and women are no longer willing to accept that they must live under Western backed dictators, in Western manufactured states and do not think their lives are cheaper than anyone else’s. They do not see it is their lot in life to see their people slaughtered by drones or kidnapped never to be seen again — they intend to stop it.
And this is what we should have encouraged. For me, as a left-liberal and progressive sort of chap the Arab Spring held a great deal of promise – promise that hasn’t fully materialised. We should have been supporting what was going on, not dithering. This is what a genuinely ethical foreign policy would have been, to provide aid to dissidents and the young, intellectual, progressive revolutionaries. Instead those movements, one by one, seem to have been eclipsed by the very sort of radicalised Islam we were allegedly fighting against in the first place. An opportunity to draw a line under the past, shake hands and look to the future appears to have been squandered.
Muslims are human beings. No human being can live under an unjust order for ever. Eventually they will fight to overturn that order — and that is exactly what they are doing.
And this is the situation across the world, though not as starkly obvious. In Britain our political system is unrepresentative and unresponsive. Apathy towards politics in the general population is at an all time high and the ones who should be taking to the streets are divided against each other by a blaming culture. People struggle to survive, with no time or thought to change while bankers and warmongers continue to get sleek and fat. Their budgets and bonuses never get cut.
Where do we go from here? I don’t know. I hope something good will come of all these geopolitical shifts but it remains to be seen.
Still, Islam’s unreformed and absolutist theocratic rule is no better than the dictators it would displace, perhaps worse. Probably worse. The USA and its tag-alongs trying to ‘win hearts and minds’ while bombing and shooting people is no solution either.
Where we are now, the differences look irreconcilable.
I was challenged to come up with examples of this on Twitter when I objected to some rather extremist feminist positions on the basis of egalitarianism. The argument was that feminism is in response to systematic oppression of women over centuries[1] and that the idea of men being oppressed for being men was ludicrous. I don’t believe that to be so. I do not think women are – or ever truly have been – entirely powerless and that the society that we might see as being oppressive is so to both men and women.
Is this shifting? Yes. Is this shift even? No.
Issues where men are discriminated against and oppressed have received no redress while women’s largely have been (presuming we’re talking about the liberal west). Men have lost a lot of rights and privileges (in the non social justice meaning) but they have retained a lot of the duties, responsibilities and expectations that those rights and privileges were paid for.
If some of these seem petty to you, consider the response to many supposed feminist issues that are brought up – such as ‘No more page three’ or ‘Lose the lad’s mags’.[2]
Many of the things that are apparently seen as being the rights and privileges of men, things to be valued and sought after, are seen by men as duties and responsibilities. Things that are expected or demanded of them.
Here’s a few ways in which men are systematically oppressed:
Abuse Support
Addiction
Campus Culture
Capital Punishment
Censorship and policing via social media
Child Support
Circumcision.
Combat Duty
Custody Battles
Dating
Divorce
Domestic Violence
Draft.
Education
Emotional expression
Father’s Rights
Feminisation of workspaces
Harsher and longer sentences for crimes
Homelessness
Lack of emotional support
Lifespan
Media Portrayals
Medical Services
Objectification
Online Misandry
Paternity Fraud
Presumed to be inherently violent and dangerous
Public exposure when sexual allegations are brought
Rape Victimhood and Support
Reproductive Rights
Schroedinger’s Rapist
Sexual Liberation
Sexual Performance
Shaming
Societal devaluing of non-academic male skills and contributions
Stay-at-home Husbands
STEM support
Suicide
Suspension of presumed innocence
Suspicion of Paedophilia
Tax Contributions
Victims of Violence
Wealth Control
Weddings
Welfare Support
Work/Life Balance
Workplace deaths and injuries
As an exercise for the reader I’m not going to explain these. I’m inviting you to think about how these may be problems for men, where the disparity lies and to consider whether it is fair.
No these are not things that can be addressed by feminism, which is concerned with women. No this is not ‘what about teh menz’ as a way to dismiss women’s legitimate issues, rather to point out that men have issues as well and that people should work together for genuine equality.
Yes some of these are petty and I don’t, personally, consider them to be real problems (the same as with some feminist issues) but I was trying to mirror what I see from feminism and so included them.
[1] – The argument is not that women are being oppressed or have been oppressed. Rather that this is also the case for men and feminism, explicitly concerned with women’s issues is not set up – or even named – to deal with these issues. Rather an equal and active ‘masculinism’ movement is needed or an egalitarian movement of humanist concern. Yet we see the attempts to get MHRA movements off the ground treated with hypocritically dismissive and sarcastic disdain by feminists who claim they are misogynistic etc. Ironically, the mirror of the very claims they so strenuously deny when they’re aimed at them.
[2] – Given the existence of the internet, complaining about and trying to ban the softest of softcore pornography and pin ups is like locking the stable after the horse has not only bolted, but enjoyed a long and illustrious career at another stable, won many races and retired to a paddock in the south of France with a couple of saucy mares.
So yeah, social media arguments don’t really go anywhere and usually just ends up with people posting links to interminable Youtube videos that fire off fallacies at a rate like a machine gun. Still, this chap actually linked to something he wrote, so given the effort it’s only fair to reply to it properly and Twitter etc aren’t really the best venues. So this’ll do.
The link’s here if you’re interested, but I’ll quote the necessary.
“…Let them reflect on the camels, and how they were created; and the heaven, how it’s raised aloft; and the mountains, how they are hoisted…”
For the people of thinking, reflection and introspection, these aspects of creation are signposts to the Divine Reality.
Problem number one.
‘How they were created’ is a presumption. ‘How it’s raised aloft’ is a presumption. ‘How they are hoisted’ is a presumption.
What you have here are questions. Not evidence. Even if we had no answers ‘God did it’ is an answer that would need evidence in support of it. As it happens we know how camels came about naturally, we know how space came to be as it is and we know how mountains come about and there’s no indication of any design or divine interference at any stage.
In all my discussions with atheists, whether online or in person, I’ve identified a recurring trend: they attempting to refute theists, but can’t, and don’t, present their own reasons for the rejection of God’s existence. For instance, some say:
(1) Why’s there so much evil in the world?
(2) Why’s Hell promised?
(3) Everything originated from evolution.
(4) Religion causes war.
There’s no need to refute theists. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that their god exists. Without evidence for a god one is forced, logically, to hold the negative position on the proposition. While everything you list is also true and likely to also come up these are more attempts to show to the stubborn believer the problems internal to their belief system even if you accept it at face value.
The incoherence of some atheists extends from one nonsensical idea to another: if we, the theists, say that there’s a God, they immediately ask, “Well, who created your God?” If we say He’s eternal, they say that such a statement is illogical. However, when they’re asked regarding the life of the universe, they’re prepared to say that it’s eternal. Atheism is self-contradictory.
The point seems to have been missed here as well. If you think the universe – in all its complexity and wonder – demands a creator, and that’s the basis of your argument (argument from design) then god, more complex and more wonderful would demand the same. This would go on forever. If you make an exception for god then you’re leaving the door open to other exceptions. That’s why you run into the counter that the universe could be (or maybe is) eternal. Again it’s a way to illustrate the weakness of your argument.
Some atheists, such as Betrand Russell, state that the universe eternal, it’s just there.
Bertrand Russell was a man from another age when the universe was considered most likely to be static. Observations that confirmed an expanding universe would come late in his life. So this is a bit unfair to Mr Russell.
From the outset, it should be noted that mathematical infinites exist in what philosophers call “a mathematical realm of discourse”, but this infinite exists as an assumption or axiom; it exists conceptually, but not in actuality. If we scratch the surface on this Betrand Russell’s statement, we find that it’s archaic and absurd. The infinite can’t exist in the real world; that is, an infinite number of elements or discrete parts can’t exist.
There are infinites that are present in the world but let’s not get sidetracked into that. Another meaning of ‘eternal’ would be that something exists ‘forever’. Given time doesn’t exist until the universe does (space and time being one) we can say the universe has existed forever, without running into this problem. It’s also possible that the universe will continue to exist for an infinite time, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a ‘starting point’ (scare quotes because this isn’t an accurate description).
This also creates a problem for the idea that the universe was ‘created’, since you cannot have a ‘before time’ or an ‘outside space’ there is no context in which a cause can occur.
This is a strange position, as things can’t come into existence via nothing; the idea is mentally incomprehensible, let alone illogical. Professor Lawrence Krauss, in his book attempts to redefine the word ‘nothing’, so as to fool the untrained reader. His use of linguistic gymnastics to try and convince the reader surely hasn’t worked. Even a cursory reading of his book reveals that his attempted redefinition of ‘nothing’ to means the quantum vacuum. In short, the quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy. Many physicists have adopted a deterministic approach in that these events do have causes.
As vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles show you can have effect without cause, radioactive decay demonstrates this as well. It also shows you can get something from nothing. This is not a redefinition and as Krauss points out, philosophers etc seem unable to meaningfully define nothing. He uses the term as a physicist and has demonstrated amply in the book that modern understanding demonstrates that you can work up to the whole universe from nothing. A philosophical ‘nothing’ (whatever that might be) may not even be possible.
In asserting that it ‘must be a god’ you still have the problem of no evidence. If your premises are invalid your conclusions are also going to be invalid and an assertion is no use without evidence.
Kalam, which is the argument that you’re trying to put forward, doesn’t dodge the inherent self contradiction present in the original cosmological argument. I go into this more here.
The rational position is the one based on the evidence and the evidence is not there in support of a god at any step of the path. Everywhere we look we see naturalism, undirected natural laws unfolding over time without any divine interference. The last bastion of any sort of remotely credible theism is a weak deism, that some sort of deity started off the universe and hasn’t been seen or heard of since. Even this has no evidence and so, without evidence, must be considered false. This last bastion of theistic belief is also under assault from science, as Krauss has demonstrated, even if you don’t/can’t agree with him on every point he – and Hawking – have taken us back further.
What you have here is a long – and relatively eloquent – argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. You still lack evidence for a god and until you have it, all you have is unsupported assertion based on weak logic spun from false premises.
Generally speaking I do my best to maintain an air of calm, to use the opportunities presented by people’s questions about atheism, naturalism, evolutionary biology and so on to educate and elucidate. I am by no means an expert, but that still puts me leagues ahead of creationist proselytisers like Answers in Genesis.
However, fuck that in the ear.
One of the most common and idiotic questions to arise by people who ‘doubt’ evolution[1] is ‘Why are there still monkeys?‘
If you ask this question you are one of five things:
1. A troll. 2. Mentally retarded.[2] 3. Uneducated. 4. A shill for creationist groups. 5. Genuinely ignorant of the facts.
I mean, you’re on the queefing internet and can use it to look up that incest/scat porn you love so much. You can’t Google ‘human evolution’ for yourself? You’re sitting there with access to all of human knowledge and you haven’t used it to LEARN about this question that vexes you so much? WHY THE CORMORANT-WANKING ARSE-BUTTER NOT?
So listen up, you rancid squeezing of scrotal pus, and I will tell you why there are still monkeys.
Why there are Still Monkeys
First a counter question.
Why THE BALL-SOLDERING FUCK would you think there wouldn’t still be monkeys? Did you think some monkey committee got together one day in distant prehistory and had some sort of meeting? Perhaps the chairmonkey banged his gavel-stone on a rock and laid it down to everyone?
“You know what chaps. I’m sick of this ‘being a monkey’ shit. How about we all climb down from the trees, shed our fur, dock our tails, walk upright and starts calling ourselves humans?”
“Point of order!”
“The chair recognises Brian Macaque.”
“Can we keep the tails? They’re kinda neat.”
“No. Motion carried.”
That isn’t how it happens, you mong.
Look. Let’s try using an analogy (a thing that is similar to another thing) so that your miniscule amount of grey matter (that means ‘small brain’) can try to understand it, and then let’s use that to explain how evolution works. Given that most of you are from that gang of festering colonial septics [3], let’s use American history for our analogy.
Way back when a bunch of religious extremists, not unlike yourselves, got a bit peeved about the restoration of the monarchy and its implied return to Catholicism. Unable to deal with this they upped sticks and made the long journey to the American colonies, which were little more than disease infested shitholes at the time.
Little has changed.
Separated from Europe and England by thousands of miles America began to develop its own culture, traditions and lifestyle (or what passes for them over there) while Europe and Britain continued with their own culture, traditions and lifestyle. Separation and lack of easy communication (that means talking to each other), as well as different climate, space, the presence of a hostile native culture and so on all meant that the two countries diverged more and more.
This came to a head with the American Revolution and your founding fathers – traitors, terrorists and seditionists to a man – lead the revolt that finally separated England from its colonies.
So America came from Britain, separated from Britain and became its own country. With me so far? Probably not, you probably used the swearing as an excuse to cock off in a huff. Fuck you then. Anyway…
IF AMERICA EXISTS, WHY ARE THERE STILL BRITISH PEOPLE?
Do you see? Do you understand quite how monumentally fucking stupid your question is now? Why I am swearing and bashing my head against a wall every time you say it? Can you at least redeem yourself by some infinitesimal degree and admit you were wrong or at least didn’t know what you were talking about?
No you say? It’s different?
Well, yes, it is different, but it is also the same.
For starters, and this is a really, really important thing to understand so PLEASE concentrate very hard and stop flicking over to Youtube to watch ‘Blurred Lines’ or whatever other bit of artificially crafted controversy you kids like these days.
Humans DID NOT come from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. Monkeys are more like our cousins. While YOU might have been fathered by your cousin, given that you’re a fucking idiot who won the genetic anti-lottery this is not what normally happens. Rather, even though you’re related to your cousin you both share a grandparent. When it comes to humans and monkeys we share a ‘species grandparent’, that common ancestor that would have been very much like a monkey.
All life on Earth is related if you go back far enough, but that would BLOW YOUR INDESCRIBABLY TINY MIND so we won’t cover that right now.
Another difference? Evolution is SLOW. A revolution can take place over the span of a few years, well within a lifetime, while evolution takes place much more slowly, measured in multiple lifetimes because it relies on the reproductive cycle (fucking and having babies who carry your genes – but let’s hope you take yourself out of the genepool because you’re clearly defective).
To call evolution slow (at least in large creatures such as ourselves) is to miss a perfect opportunity to use a posh word like ‘glacial’ and to use ‘glacial’ is to miss a perfect opportunity to use the term IMPERCEPTIBLY COCKING SLOW.
At some point some of our common ancestors got separated. Perhaps by migration or disaster, a change in climate, disease, earthquake. The conditions around them changed and so the kinds of things that helped them survive changed. They needed to walk upright. They didn’t need to climb trees. Adaptability and intelligence (though not in your case) became things that helped them live and so they were ‘selected’ for.
That’s natural selection, not some bearded sky-wizard calling the shots. The stupid ape gets eaten while flicking the sabretooth in the plums with a stick, the smart ape hoards food and so on. Meanwhile other groups of this ancestor were living in different places and situations where different things helped them live.
The populations diverged (that means split up) and developed in different ways.
Over time those differences get bigger and bigger and bigger until the two separate groups are so different that they can’t fuck and have kids any more. That’s called ‘speciation’ or ‘macroevolution’ which is the term you’ve probably heard from one of those lying shitheels that like to deny you a proper education.
There are still monkeys because we’re not from modern monkeys but from something like them from the deep past.
There are still monkeys in the same way there are still British people, even though there are Americans now.
Do you get it?
Do you understand you bacteria-infested taint-swab?
Then stop asking such fucking stupid questions and open a book other than the Bible for fucking once!
[1] – While enjoying the fruits of evolutionary biology and medicine in the form of vaccinations, genetic screening, DNA crime scene evidence, genetically tailored medicine and the hopes of bacteriophages as a replacement for antibiotics, paternity tests, ancestry tracking and everything else… the braindead cunts.
[2] – Yes, yes, it’s not nice to call people retarded as an insult. Whatever. Cry me a river and I will drink your delicious tears as a nod to the legends about Fomorians. I don’t have anything against the genuinely mentally subnormal, I am insulting people that should know better. Make yourself useful and go protest something that actually, meaningfully hurts people. Like welfare cuts, fitness tests for the disabled or corporate tax avoidance. You’re a hideous stereotype of a ‘wet liberal’ and you make me sick you festering axe-wound.
[3] – Rhyming slang for Americans. ‘Septic tank, Yank’.
Trying to claim Einstein, or indeed anyone else, as being on the side of god is an argument from authority and therefore has no real bearing on the question of whether god exists or not. Nonetheless it is extremely aggravating to see such an eminent scientist being co-opted by evangelical proselytisers in an attempt to lend credibility to their beliefs. Einstein is a favourite because he is an iconic figure and his image and words convey the authority of science to the ‘layman’ in a way few others do.
This post is an attempt to put this to bed once and for all, though it’s naive to think it will do so. Also to provide a reference in case this comes up again – which it will.
Argument from Authority
Everything past this section is actually unnecessary, but I’ll be carrying on anyway regardless. The argument from authority is a known fallacy which, simply put, is the following:
“Just because someone important says something, doesn’t mean that it’s true.”
Just because George Bush tells you there’s WMDs in Iraq doesn’t mean there are. Just because Newton believed in ritual magic and alchemy doesn’t mean they are valid. Just because your mum tells you eating your crusts will make your hair curly doesn’t make it true.
Even if Einstein had been a raging evangelist who believed in a literal, biblical god – alongside his scientific accomplishments – that wouldn’t make it true any more than his scientific accomplishments would lend credibility to him claiming that the Moon was made of green cheese.
What did Einstein Really Believe?
Einstein had a very subtle and nuanced view of the universe which makes it hard to read. In no sense, however, was he a fan of religion. He did not believe in any sort of god that the typical theist quoting him would consider a god. He variously called himself an agnostic, a religious non-believer, a pantheist and a Spinozan.
He explicitly stated on several occasions that he did not believe in a personal god, an intercessory god, a god that punishes and rewards, the immortality of the human soul or that morality was the concern of any deity. That doesn’t leave much room, if any, for most people’s concept of a god.
As an agnostic you could say he didn’t know whether there was a god or not and/or that he believed this was unknowable. Virtually all atheists are also agnostics (these are not mutually exclusive) and many people use ‘agnostic’ when they mean weak or agnostic atheist, or just to avoid upsetting people over much. Much like Neil Degrasse Tyson today, Einstein seems to have had more of a live-and-let-live policy which – while I don’t agree – I can respect as coming from a good place. He was wary of being identified with the ‘crusading atheists’ of his time, much as some today, while not believing, are wary of joining with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Krauss.
On the face of it, ‘religious non-believer’ seems like a contradiction in terms. However, there are several religions or near-religions that can be considered atheistic. Some versions of Buddhism are atheistic as are some Eastern traditions. Modern Satanism is not actually the worship of Satan but a ‘libertarianism for the soul’ and a piss-take on much the same lines as Discordianism and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Einstein was fond, unfortunately, of using religious terminology and allegory in explaining things and by religion he meant ‘awe, wonder and reverence’.
Pantheism is the view that the universe and god are one. This can be interpreted two ways, that everything is god or that what people call god is simply the universe itself. The second interpretation would seem to fit with other comments Einstein made elsewhere.
Spinozism is a pantheist view (or panentheist if you prefer), that ‘god’ – or what people call god – is an underlying ‘something’ to the universe that interpenetrates and includes it. The quintessential ‘somethingness’ of reality if you will. Keep in mind, Spinoza’s view lead to him being considered an atheist and excommunicated. As a die hard determinist from a Jewish cultural background it’s little wonder that Spinoza would appeal to Einstein.
Einstein’s view then is absolutely not that there is a god, but that the universe is a wonderful and majestic thing that some people mistake for god. His view is, perhaps, best summed up in this quote:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
So Why do the Religious Quote Him so Much?
Einstein had an unfortunate habit, that many other scientists have had down the years, even Hawking, for using god and religion as a metaphor. This allows him to be quote-mined by creationists and evangelicals who want to claim him as one of theirs. Some of these, and his meanings, include:
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.” (Reality is hard to fathom, but not deliberately hidden).
“God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.” (The universe is what it is. If the maths doesn’t add up, it’s the maths that’s wrong, not the universe).
“God doesn’t play dice with the world.” (As a determinist he thought everything followed one after another. He was wrong as Chaos Theory and Quantum Mechanics have later shown. This is just an expression of his determinism).
Conclusion
It doesn’t matter whether Einstein believed in god or not. It lends no support to the idea one way or the other.
He was not religious in a sense any of the big three Abrahamic Religions would recognise. Rather his opinion might be best expressed as a sense of awe, reverence and wonder for the natural universe
He should not be co-opted by theists to support their point of view as he quite explicitly stated he didn’t believe in the god they are pushing. While to all intents and purposes he was an atheist he preferred not to be associated with ‘crusading atheists’ so we should not abuse what he said and thought either – not that I’ve ever seen an atheist be other than truthful about it.
There seem to be a string of stories lately about various ‘schisms’ or ‘problems’ within atheism. Part of this is inevitable backlash to the ground that New Atheism has won – and is to be expected. If just not-being religious is enough to upset people then it’s hardly surprising that being critical of religion will elicit an even stronger reaction. This reaction isn’t, of course, only limited to the people that follow a religion but the people who are averse to criticising it because its rude or who, patronisingly, think it’s ‘good stuff for other people’.
This article is symptomatic of the problem. A laundry-list of non-controversies, misunderstandings and manufactured arguments that have amounted to very little in the greater swing of things. It then proceeds to blame entirely the wrong people.
Harris has been a target for some of his comments, mostly because he treats Islam without the kidgloves that have come to be expected and because some people are incapable of separating criticism from Islamophobia and Islamophobia from racism. Not that I’m sure a religion with as many problems as Islam can truly be considered to be a feared irrationally. Fear can be a rational response when something is genuinely terrifying.
Dawkins is blunt and grumpy but that – and his wit – is what makes him so effective. Put anyone’s ideas and statements under the level of scrutiny that he is put under by the tumblrgh crowd and they’ll find something to get upset about. The absolute worst interpretation is always put upon anything he says by those with an axe to grind and it’s rather dishonest.
Dennett’s avoided many of the same issues, largely – I think – by being ill and looking like Father Christmas. His criticisms of religion are no less powerful and forthright, he just doesn’t seem to have grabbed the same attention.
Hitchens is, of course, dead – sadly. He, however, exemplifies the ‘angry prick’ stereotype so repetitiously hammered home in the article. However, being an angry prick is what made Hitchen’s career and what made him such a powerful critic of religion, so quotable and so useful in the debate circuses that normally favour the folksy, nice-seeming creationists and religious apologists.
What atheism means is not difficult. It’s simple absence of belief in god/s. If you want to get into atheist activism we can go a little further, but not much. That would be ‘because there’s no good reason to believe in god, religion should not influence education, politics, health’.
It’s really not that hard to grasp. All the schisms that have come in, mentioned in the article, stem from people trying to hitch various other causes to atheism’s wagon.
Being a Dick: We need people willing to be dicks and others who don’t act like dicks. Dennett and Harris – softer spoken types – got through to people that Dawkins and Hitchens did not and vice versa. It’s a cliché, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind and the kinds of people we often deal with as atheists are not amenable to logic and reason. Engaging them, getting them going, on an emotional level will sometimes reach them in a way that simply being logical and right will not. It can also force someone to defend the indefensible, something that can cause reflection later on or show up hypocrisy to the peanut gallery. This isn’t a problem in atheism, it’s a problem with trying to tie behavioural policing and ‘social-justice’ rhetoric to atheism.
The Soft Left: Criticising Islam is not racism nor bound up in fear. Yes there are right-wing groups using the criticism of the horrors of Islam to stir up hatred but while they’re racist pricks that doesn’t mean criticism of Islam and concern about it are racist or invalid simply because the BNP has ‘poisoned the well’. We’re now in the bizarre position where many soft-left talking heads who claim to be against misogyny, violence and all these other things are giving Islam a free pass and exposing themselves as hypocrites. This isn’t a problem with atheism. It’s a problem with conflating other political issues – such as race – with religion and criticism thereof.
Sexism: While there are almost certainly genuine misogynists in the broad, atheist movement (keep in mind it also contains libertarians, Randroids, diehard Marxists and other oddities as well as people that just don’t believe in god) it doesn’t seem to me that it is a particular problem and – indeed – that it is a much lesser problem than elsewhere. What it does have – not unlike other arenas such as gaming, SF&F etc – is a much higher degree of concern and activism by certain parties within it, making the problem seem like it is more prevalent, present or endemic. Again, all that unites atheists is not believing in god and atheists as a whole tend to be rather skeptical. Expecting them to swallow highly politicised and poorly supported gender theory without question is a bit much to expect and treating any questioning or skeptical rigour as hatred is going to attract scorn.
Atheism just means we don’t believe in god and it means we are free to examine things with a more skeptical eye and one that can look to genuine solutions rather than ones that rely on dubious authority. People like the – much praised in this article – Rebecca Watson are not engaging in that, rather they are placing their own unfounded prejudices and biases upon the pedestal that others have placed religion. She’s the poster child for everything we shouldn’t be and the failure of A+ is a heartening example that there’s still hope.
All these issues are not issues with atheism. They are issues where someone has assumed that just because we both agree that the idea of a god is stupid and has no place in public life that we must therefore agree on whatever pet cause they have and have internally wedded to atheism. Atheism and secularism are one thing, hooking other things to that wagon such as radical feminism, over-extended race politics or whatever else narrows the appeal and causes divisions. If you decry ageism, classism, racism and sexism in one breath, then condemn or ignore someone out of hand for being old, middle class, white or male in the next then you’re an obvious hypocrite and should expect to be treated as such.
We need to re-separate the various causes, not combine them. Atheism is just one kind of activism and as atheists we don’t all have to agree on every point past that, singular one. Follow your other causes on your own time, subject them to the same level of skepticism and reason and don’t expect to set up new sacred cows in the place of the one we just knocked over without a fight.
As to the honey, doesn’t it just bring home how fucking stupid the security precautions have gotten?
There seem to be a string of stories lately about various ‘schisms’ or ‘problems’ within atheism. Part of this is inevitable backlash to the ground that New Atheism has won – and is to be expected. If just not-being religious is enough to upset people then it’s hardly surprising that being critical of religion will elicit an even stronger reaction. This reaction isn’t, of course, only limited to the people that follow a religion but the people who are averse to criticising it because its rude or who, patronisingly, think it’s ‘good stuff for other people’.
The AtheFist 