Fragile Belief Systems
They don’t really believe.
I forget who told me that and where, but I believe it was in a discussion that started with Anarchism, the New Atheism. I have talked about being comforted by a belief and how people do not give up such comforting beliefs easily. The point was made to me, that deep down, they don’t really believe. They want to remain in a sort of pleasant delirium and that state of mind requires a kind of focus of thought without too much distraction by reality.
Some have already subjected their own beliefs to deep scrutiny and their beliefs have either survived it or evolved. Such people can have rational discussions about their beliefs. Others with a fragile faith need constant affirmations to deal with the doubt that’s constantly creeping up on them. When you discuss religion, you can gauge how solid a person’s faith is by how angry they get when you ask reasonable questions of it. Such faith is already very fragile and is only maintained by surrounding themselves with true believers and by repetitive rituals that reaffirm their beliefs. Your questions are a bull in the fragile china shop of their constructs. When you ask questions that raise doubts for such a person, it may seem like a calm rational discussion to you, but it actually feels violent to them.
Irrational belief in the state provides an array of comforting justifications to relieve people of the guilt they would otherwise feel for supporting such massive institutionalized violence. There are seemingly endless rituals, large and small, to reinforce our belief in the state. We call men in uniform “Sir”. We pledge allegiance to the flag. We stand as judges enter a courtroom. We memorize and recite the Gettysburg Address in school. We line up to vote every couple of years. That’s just scratching the surface. Start paying attention to all the rituals you do to reaffirm the state’s authority over you and you may start to find it as disturbing as I do. If you allow yourself to consider it, you’ll realize these are classic brainwashing tactics to reinforce your belief in something that’s simply not rational.
“When you discuss religion, you can gauge how solid a person’s faith is by how angry they get when you ask reasonable questions of it.”
So true of religion, state and the third rail of authoritarianism: the parents.
Ask someone how they know their mom loves them and watch the fireworks.
Dale, love itself is not always comprehensible. That does not necessarily make it “irrational,” “incorrect,” much less evil. Conversely, initiating violence and doing evil is never rational. That does not stop some people. Like truth, you cannot measure love in itself. Or by empirical means.
-Sans Authoritas
It’s very sweet. Still, it’s kind of silly to talk about an emotion as being rational or not. Rational is not an appropriate adjective for emotions. “Rational” is really only an appropriate adjective for a very few things, such as a belief or an assertion about reality, and by extension it might be applied to a person who repeatedly made assertions about reality based on poor reasoning.
That one feels an emotion is undeniable and ridiculous to deny. If someone wanted to make a claim about why we feel love, it might then make sense to talk about whether their explanation was rational or not. I’m not particularly concerned with why I feel something unless it leads me to make bad decisions. If I want some broccoli, I’m not particularly concerned with why because broccoli is good for me, so I will satisfy my craving for broccoli and feel no compulsion to analyze why I want it. I’ll simply enjoy it. If I loved someone who was abusive to me, then I might attempt to analyze where those feelings were coming from.
Sometimes breaking that raw emotion down and thinking about it rationally may allow one some way to break out of an unhealthy cycle. The feeling can be neither rational nor irrational. The analysis of why, however, could be. That’s why talking about these things with a friend or councilor can be helpful.
Dale, agape love is not a passion or an emotion. It is a decision with a motivation. Eros can be a passion, along with mere emotional affection. You can have agape love for someone without having any emotional warmth toward them whatsoever.
-Sans Authoritas
The agape love as you describe it, as an emotionless decision with a motivation, is an example of something where “rational” is a valid descriptor. Unfortunately, that also makes it a poor example when talking about love in the context in which you used it, as an emotion. If it’s a decision without emotion, then it most definitely should be comprehensible if it is to be considered rational. You can’t have it both ways.
Dale, if my motivation is the material benefit of another without any material benefit on my part, can it be said to be “rational?” If I do not benefit materially, is can my action be rational?
-Sans Authoritas
Sans, we can argue endlessly about specific cases where we disagree about what’s rational, but it would just be a distraction from the point. Let me quote you so we can stay on point..
Dale, love itself is not always comprehensible. That does not necessarily make it “irrational,” “incorrect,” much less evil.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this but it’s just not saying much because you’re applying the term “rational” to an emotion where it’s use as an adjective is of questionable application, making it a very poor analogy for the context which is the rationality of belief systems, where “rational” is a very valid descriptor. An assertion about reality can be analyzed for it’s reasonableness based on all the information available to the parties discussing it. If you say you love someone, I can’t possibly analyze the chemicals in your body, the neurons firing in your brain, or whatever is happening internally to drive that personal motivation in order to analyze why you love that person. You may be able to analyze it to some extent, because at least you are experiencing it and I may be able to assist somewhat, but only to the extent that you can communicate it to me within the limits of our language.
In short, you are comparing something reasonably objective with something that is rather subjective. The apparent point seems to be that we cannot apply scrutiny to belief systems about our shared reality, but the analogy to something highly subjective that exists only within your personal experience epically fails to support that claim.
BTW, a couple of your recent comments were caught by the automated spam catcher. It seems to have something to do with the number of your recent comments. I happened to discover this and recovered them which will bump your rating some, but you may want to consider creating a login which would I believe will make it far less likely that your comments will get filtered. I tend to scan the filtered comments, but I’m starting to get a LOT of them lately which will make it harder to do. Maybe this is a good sign in a way. It means we’re more “on the map” and a bigger target for spam.
i think it’s obvious that if a belief is so self-evidently true and that only a crazy person would disbelieve, then it would not be necessary to threaten disbelievers with the various methods monotheists especially tend to use, from the physical coercion used throughout history to the more subtle cues built into the belief systems themselves, such as Hell, which punish disbelief itself and, in the case of Muslims especially, reserve the severest penalties for apostates, because they cast the most doubt upon the belief system.
Sans: there is actually a rational explanation for the instinct of altruism and the self-sacrifice it sometimes engenders, which is the herd instinct. a simple collective survival mechanism that tends to bond us together as a species and socialise us (no pun intended) so that we work together against common foes, evolved in the early days of our species on the African savanna when we were faced with both predator and prey which were too big for us to deal with as individuals; in that respect, the surivival of the group was also beneficial to to the majority of individuals.
this is why authoritarian apologists are exaggerating when they say that if we aren’t forced to help each other, we won’t, because all of us have the instinct for both selfishness and altruism. but to give the socialists a nod, there is an argument to be made that socialism – which is basically legally-mandated altruism – does have some “self evident” roots in our own nature.
basically both socialism and individualism have roots in nature and it’s just a matter which we choose to prioritise. i think “human dignity” rests in the concept of free will, and that the group cannot be free if the individuals which comprise it aren’t, even if a co-option of indivudual will results in a “healthier social organism”. it’s like trying to build a blue house out of red bricks. it may be a fine house but it will never be a free house, and a free house is the only kind i care to live in, even if the roof leaks now and then. it just has better feng-shui.
but to play the “Devil’s Advocate” here (just full of irony today), Christianty was one of the first philosophies to enshrine the dignity of the individual (encouraging charity but stipulating that it must be a choice (ie: “if you wish to follow Me, sell what you own and give the proceeds to the poor”), even though they seem to have abandoned that pretext once they became dominant, as power always seems to forget its pretext, sooner rather than later, which is another reason i’m leery about handing over too much power to government, even for “good” reasons. today it’s helping the poor, but once we prostrate ourselves and surrender the social infratructure to them it’s whatever they darn well say it is, so i’d rather take my chances with free will than surrender my power to the Leviathan.
The point was made to me, that deep down, they don’t really believe. They want to remain in a sort of pleasant delirium and that state of mind requires a kind of focus of thought without too much distraction by reality.
I think that this same thing can often be said about libertarians and anarchists. I sometimes wonder how many anarchists really believe that a world without any coercive government is possible and if it ever came about if it would actually be a world in which they would want to live in. Some of course believe, but I really think that there are a lot of people who maybe dislike the government and so claim to be anarchists, but don’t truly believe that the world could function without coercive government.
How many minarchists really believe that government can be controlled if it is only reduced and not eliminated. I have known many libertarians who cave at the last minute and do things like vote for a republican or democrat, I have known some to vote in the positive on some ballot initiative to decrease our freedoms. I have seen several Libertarians get elected to some small office and the next thing you know they change their party and become statists.
It seems to me that I have known a lot of liberty people who really didn’t seem to believe what they say. They say good things, but then act in a way contrary to their purported beliefs.
I am not pointing fingers. I am just throwing this out there as something to think about. I often wonder how many people in the liberty movement would drop out of the movement and turn sides if the liberty movement actually ever started to make any serious strides.
Fester, that’s a good point really. How many people actually believe the workability of what they espouse.
Indeed, many people “of faith” react as if someone who is not of their faith is dangerous. Wouldn’t the logical feeling be one of acceptance? “Well, they’re not saved but they’re ok people. Such is God’s plan.”
I’m not sure minarchists believe government can be kept to a minimum, just that a minimal government is preferable to a maximal government. I agree with them, much like a small infection is better than a large one.
At least I know I don’t cave, and LewRockwell.com had a wonderful article in the last day or two ago entitled “Don’t Cave” on that very subject. Good reading.
Susan, you said “there is actually a rational explanation for the instinct of altruism and the self-sacrifice it sometimes engenders, which is the herd instinct.”
I don’t think I follow. In the herd instinct, every individual is trying to get away from the threat. Some individuals try to neutralize the threat. In both cases, all the individuals are looking out for their own self-interest. The slowest one dies. A “herd mentality” cannot explain wilful human sacrifice. It cannot explain the case of a man such as Maximilian Kolbe, who volunteered to be thrown into Block 13, into a starvation chamber, at Auchwitz I, in order to spare another man. That is not neutralizing the threat for all parties in the herd. It is wilfully allowing oneself to be destroyed by the threat for the good of another. You will never see a herd animal stop and stand there as a willing sacrifice for the whole of the herd. They all either run or fight, and all for their own individual defenses. A dog may attack a man with a gun who is trying to kill its human pack leader, but it has no concept of deliberately trying to catch a bullet. Humans, on the other hand, do. It makes no sense for a mere material herd member to deliberately lay down his own life for another human. How do you explain a man who lays down his life for another, when he knows he has nothing material to gain? Is such a man insane? Can you say that such a man is irrational?
We recognize that there is a “right thing” to do based on our human nature. A human nature that goes beyond a certain kind of chemical composition, like the nature of quartz or a cactus. We humans, whether we acknowledge it or not, recognize that there is something more to human nature than being a strange clump of phenomenally malleable clay.
Altruism is instinctual, insofar as it is indicative of an understanding of our human nature and why we are here, however rudimentary this understanding is.
Susan, if you would: why are we here? Is there any reason? If not, why am I asking if there is a reason? Am I insane for asking?
-Sans Authoritas
There’s an interesting thread on this very subject on the Linux web site Lxer.com:
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28233/
It started out as “communist” vs “selfish arrogant bastards”, but turned into a discussion of whether it is possible to act selflessly.
I assert that, because humans “act”, we cannot act self-lessly, because it is our selves that act. We have a choice. Any truly selfless act is merely accident, where the self was uninvolved.
As long as “altruism” is defined only as a regard for others, that’s fine. The individual still gets the reward of feeling good, or knowing that others will live if he dies, etc. Otherwise, they wouldn’t act.
It’s not enough information to analyze the rationality of a decision to sacrifice one’s self for another. It’s important to look at self-sacrifice of any sort as a kind of payment for some return. Why are you doing it? What are you getting in return? We all have goals and things that are important to us. A mother likely considers the well-being of her children of the highest value and it wouldn’t strike me as irrational at all for her to sacrifice herself to protect them. Someone who risks their lives in a conflict believes (or has been made to believe) that their highest values will be protected by their sacrifice. I sacrificed three hours of my life doing some volunteer work, quite small of a price compared to sacrificing EVERY hour left of my life, but still it was a payment and I felt like the return was worth it just like any sort of trade that people do. I felt like I had an impact on the world that suits my personal drives and goals for my life that outweighed the price I paid for it.
If I were inclined to analyze that sacrifice for the rationality of it, I’d want to know why someone was sacrificing himself for another. Are you doing it because there is some external expectation of self-sacrifice or does that person’s survival have considerable value for your own valid reasons based on your goals?
I think when self-sacrifice becomes an end in itself, it can be very irrational. If everyone were self-sacrificing, we’d have a world where no one allows themselves to reap the benefits of the heavy prices everyone is paying. All by itself in a vacuum, sacrifice is extremely irrational, but presumably there is some value gained by it. When I decided to do volunteer work, I spent some effort to find where it would have the most benefit toward my personal goals. So being rational about it makes it more effective.
I will likely be in jail soon for refusing to stand for a so-called judge. Some will argue that’s an irrational self-sacrifice. I will argue that thugs are violently forcing me down to two choices. I have a choice between a tremendous sacrifice of my personal values and losing a chance at voicing my sincere beliefs in a very public way versus the temporary sacrifice of my personal freedom. I am simply choosing to pay a price for something that I value and that’s my argument for the rationality of my choice. Of course, I expect considerable debate over the rationality of my choice.
Bob wrote: “I assert that, because humans “act”, we cannot act self-lessly, because it is our selves that act. We have a choice. Any truly selfless act is merely accident, where the self was uninvolved.”
Bob, this is a correct understanding. If it is my act, then it is an act that has relation to me.
“I think when self-sacrifice becomes an end in itself, it can be very irrational. . . When I decided to do volunteer work, I spent some effort to find where it would have the most benefit toward my personal goals.”
Both very true statements, Dale. You rightly point out, with Bob, that sacrifice for its own sake is irrational, and that by definition, one sacrifices with a valued goal in mind: you are trading one good for a good that you value more highly.
But the point I am trying to make is, if there is no afterlife, what goal, what value, what benefit can anyone expect from laying down one’s own life? You will not exist at all. Is a second’s worth of thinking one has done the right thing worth passing into utter non-existence right now? You must believe that sacrificing one’s own life for another life is a thing to be valued. But why is trading one’s own life for another life of any value? As I pointed out before, no other animal in the world lays down its life willingly. They may try to outrun or neutralize the threat, but humans will recognize the threat and knowingly and willingly embrace death. If all is pure matter, and one really and truly believes that, it would be pure insanity to wilfully allow oneself to pass out of material existence when one has the opportunity to live. It would make absolutely no sense.
Many animals give their own lives for their children and many take great risks with their own lives to protect others of their kind, like wolves, which are very social creatures much like humans.
I know that I’m going to die some day. I know that’s the natural way of things. I certainly don’t look forward to it and will push that day back as much as I can, but I have the sense to know that I wasn’t miserable before my personal existence because I wasn’t personally experiencing it and I won’t be miserable after my personal existence ends because I won’t be experiencing it.
In any case, I won’t pass into utter non-existence when my body dies. There is a tremendous amount of shared experience between human beings in terms of all being born, sharing sensory experiences and sharing knowledge gained over the centuries. Part of my consciousness is being preserved right now as I share thoughts with you and whoever else is reading this. I share quite a bit more of my consciousness with others I interact with personally who know me and remember me and who’s lives are impacted by their experience with me as a part of their lives. Consciousness is a lot more elaborate than just the things that are firing in my biological brain right this moment. Consciousness is an emerging and evolving pattern that transcends any one individual. It takes a stunted imagination to believe that all existence will end when my body ends. Technology has allowed us to preserve more and more of the patterns of individuals with books, pictures, sound & video. Who knows what technologies we will yet discover to allow us to preserve more and more of our patterns?
People cling to a very limited existence when they fantasize about continuing their consciousness essentially just as is exists right now in some self-centered personal eternal afterlife. It is an addiction to sameness and a fear of change. We are part of a bigger picture and our existence right now is just a step to something much greater as long as we don’t destroy ourselves first trying to cling to ancient barbaric beliefs about using violence to achieve our ends. I don’t claim to know what it will be; only that it’s probably beyond what we can even imagine right now.
What an interesting discussion. First off, I’m not sure that anger or perhaps frustration as a reaction to someone who has a different moral basis then you necessarily means your morality is unsupportable.
As a recent example, my music venue was shut down by fire marshalls for not following their capacity guidelines. I went to see a friend to vent, and she expressed her agreement with their actions. i was frustrated, and indeed angry, realizing that my friend took the side of someone else on what was to me a very deep moral issue.
On the other hand, if a complete stranger had expressed those beliefs, I wouldn’t have been particularly upset, my reaction would have been moreso “oh, here’s another one.”
To comment on Dale’s choice; I understand where you are coming from, but I tend to look at the world in a more practical manner in terms of application of my morals. Throughout nearly all of history violence has existed. I don’t know if accepting this to some extent, but recognizing its immorality and refusing to do harm yourself or use the state for your own means, is really a violation of anarchist principles. I know it can feel that way, and indeed, this is the psychological effect of human violence (that it makes us feel powerless and worthless, recognizing we have no real defense against it.) But I think the trick is to find a way to overcome that. You out of jail, in most cases, will be more of a positive force then you in jail.
Fester, I don’t think its irrational to say that given current conditions, non-violence is impossible. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthy goal.
All morality is not really a function of rational principles per ce, because even the most basic morality depends to some extent on an a priori concept. I mean, just because it may seem intrinsically obvious to us that human violence is immoral, that is not the case with everyone.
As far as altruism goes, I agree with Dale. Self interest is kind of a nebulous term. I do agree with the notion of continuous self sacrifice being a bad thing, as a society in which everyone is “self sacrificing” for the good of the whole results in a whole that is comprised of a lot of unhappy individuals.
Dale, I don’t think there has ever been a case when an animal has deliberately and knowingly laid down its life for its offspring, or a member of another species. A plover or a tern may pretend to have a broken wing to draw a fox away from its nest, and unluckily die out of poor judgment, but its only plan is always to get away before the fox eats it. Likewise, a cat may go into a burning building to fetch its kittens, but its plan is to rescue as many kittens as it can, not to die. If a human were to rush into a burning building to save some children, it would be brave and sacrificial, yes. But I am speaking here about cases where men and women have the opportunity to live, yet deliberately and willingly lay down their very lives to the foxes of this world, because they perceive a greater good will come out of it. No animal deliberately allows itself to be killed. They may die in the process of trying to protect other animals, but you will never see a sheep, or a bird, or a fish that deliberately stops and waits to die for the sake of satisfying the hunger of a predator, that others may live.
As for yearning for a state of existence just like this one after we die? Not I. I yearn for perfect peace. A perfect world, where no man initiates violence, and no suffering occurs. Reason tells me that this world will not exist in my lifetime, but I still yearn for it. Thirst is slaked by water and wine, and hunger is satisfied by food, but the fact that my hunger for perfect justice and peace cannot be satisfied in this world is, in part, what leads me to believe that there is a source to satisfy my yearning for these things.
I don’t want more of the same. I want something radically different. I want constant change: to constantly be more and to love better. I do not believe the afterlife will be egocentric, I believe it will be a phenomenal equilibrium of love for oneself and one another, in light of God, who I believe to be perfection itself, truth itself, and love itself: intangibles that, like the idea of God, cannot be measured, in themselves, by scientific means.
Dave, as for the relationship between anger and faith, I agree that I think it is misunderstood. I am not angered by someone questioning my beliefs. I am angered by someone trying to provoke me by setting up strawmen about what I believe, or by the action of someone trying to be deliberately insulting, but I will never be insulted by someone who sincerely questions what I believe and why I believe it. (If I were insulted by such questioning, I’d be insulting myself all the time!) Someone who really believes something and is comfortable with his beliefs and the reasons for those beliefs? Such a man has no reason to get angry.
Would you say that you were angry because you thought your friend, by virtue of being your friend, should be able to view the obvious in the same way as you? Would you further say that your anger was the result of a sadness for her sake? That is the best kind of sadness to have, I think. One that recognizes the truth of the way things should be, and mourns when they are not as they should be. But it is there that we need to decide what road we will take: we can get angry and kill people to impose our worldview (the statist way) or we can balance our sadness with the hope that we can convince others, by example and speech, the way things really are and really ought to be.
-Sans Authoritas
There’s no point in a mother bird letting the predator catch her. Her death isn’t what saves her babies. Drawing the predator away is what saves her babies. Of course she’s going to try to get away. Getting caught and dying at that point will likely doom her babies or at least leave them vulnerable. What use would it be for a mother cat to run into a burning house and then stay there and die? How would that save her babies? None of that proves that they aren’t willing to sacrifice themselves if that would actually achieve their goal. However, taking TREMENDOUS risks, going against their instinct for personal survival, certainly implies the contrary.
A mother octopus starves to death protecting her litter. She stops eating AT ALL. She isn’t even willing to wander a few feat away ever so briefly to catch food. She becomes completely selflessly devoted to protecting them at all costs. According to all observable action, it is suicide and they’re one of the more intelligent animals. Animals have an extremely powerful instinct for survival and yet many overcome that or even act contrary to that, usually to further the species.
To make this claim in a sweeping manner about all animals seems absurd. I just can’t understand what would lead you to that conclusion. We can’t get in their heads to say for certain what their motivations are, but this claim is certainly unfounded and even unlikely based on the observable behavior of many creatures.
Maybe it’s because human beings are, as far as we know, the only animals (from “animate”, to move) who know we are going to die.
In the same way, we’re the only ones who make such a big deal out of it, taking “concern for others” knowingly to the extreme of our own deliberate death.
Indeed, “concern for others” is common in nature.
They don’t have our degree of comprehension, of course, but I think they do know it on an instinctual level. It seems crucial to their powerful instinct for survival. How can you truly experience life and have such a powerful drive to preserve it without realizing, on some level, that it can end? We have the same instincts. It’s just mixed up with a lot of other cognitive stuph that complicates it.
But who would rationally (not emotionally) praise a cat for following its instincts, and who would call an octopus a hero for doing what is totally programmed into it, and who would write a serious ballad about a praying mantis because it gets its head eaten after it procreates? These are things these animals don’t make choices about. They just do them. Humans do make choices. In a panic situation, for the most part, people act as they choose to live. The nobler sort will sacrifice a place on the lifeboat for future generations, while others will see their own existence as the highest good. And who is to say that they are wrong to act as they do? Why is the person who shoved women and children out of the way to get to a lifeboat any less praiseworthy than the man who gave up his own spot, if each was acting on pure instinct, and not letting “a lot of cognitive stuph” get in the way?
-Sans Authoritas
I didn’t say cognitive stuph was “getting in the way”. I just said it makes us more complicated. I like my cognitive stuph. And after I demonstrated that your claim about animals and self-sacrifice was unsupportable, it suddenly become about praise or praiseworthiness. We were talking about what’s rational. To be more specific, we were talking about when is it appropriate to even describe something in terms of whether it’s rational or not.
Animal species run the spectrum in terms of just how social they are, meaning how much the survival of the species benefits by them working together. Alligators would be an example of one extreme, where a mother will likely eat one of her own young if they cross paths, while wolves would be closer to the other extreme, where they care for their elderly and some even mate for life.
People have instincts too including instincts for the survival of our species just as animals do, though it’s certainly not the only factor in our decisions. It helps describe motivations that we may feel but may have difficulty explaining. Sometimes it is comprehensible though. It makes sense to me that an individual may feel a motivation for self-sacrifice to varying degrees to help others of our kind, particularly our own offspring. We evolved as a social species. We also evolved elaborate brains so it makes sense to me that we would incorporate what may have started as merely an instinct into our higher moral constructs.
So let’s stay on point. Can it be rational for an atheist to give up his place in a lifeboat for the younger generation knowing that his heart will stop, his blood will no longer bring oxygen to his brain, and his personal consciousness as he knows it will cease? He has instincts to protect his species and if his ancestors hadn’t had those same instincts to some extent and passed them on to him, he might not even have been born or survived to that point. He shares over 99% of his DNA with every other human on the planet and more than that with his offspring. He shares a tremendous about of his consciousness with every other human being on the planet and even more with those he’s spent time with and formed bonds with. He knows he will inevitably die some day. The survival of the human race, the ideas he’s shared with others, and particularly his own offspring is his only immortality. On some level, consciously, instinctively, or both, he realizes this. Simply dying for nothing would serve nothing, but it can certainly be argued that it may be healthy, natural, and rational, in some situations, to make a tremendous personal sacrifice for others of his species.
Now, imagine a man who knows with great confidence that we have souls and that this life was just a brief prelude to something eternal, something so much more wonderful and meaningful. Is it even a sacrifice if he dies and goes straight to heaven so that others can spend a bit longer in this brief prelude of a life, a life that is like the blink of an eye in all of eternity? In fact, could you not argue that it may be rational for him to put a bullet in the head of his child as she slept, sending her on to this eternal life before the world had a chance to corrupt her faith? Would it not be a much bigger example of love and self-sacrifice for him to risk his own eternal damnation for the well-being of his daughter’s soul, knowing that her body was as brief and trivial as a soap bubble in the big scheme of God’s grand universe?
You know what? With a little tweaking, that’s going to have to be it’s own blog post. Thanx for the inspiration, Sans.
Dale, if I seem obtuse for saying it, I apologize, but I don’t think you proved that my claims about animals and self-sacrifice were unsupportable. You haven’t offered an example of an animal that stops and lays down its life deliberately in the way a human being does.
I think I understand where you are coming from: we certainly can learn from the animal kingdom, but only in the light of knowledge of our own distinct human nature.
Dale, as for your question regarding the atheist and the lifeboat: I do think it is irrational for an avowed, firmly-rooted atheist to lay down his life for another. It is reasonable only if one believes that such an action is, for some reason, better than the action of preserving oneself. Self-preservation is the penultimate instinct of any animal whereas “survival of the species” is a secondary instinct. In the animal kingdom, the instinct of self-preservation cannot be overridden by the lesser instinct of preserving the species. They can only work in tandem. This is not the case with humans, who can, in fact, override the penultimate instinct of self-preservation.
I do not, on the other hand, think that anyone is actually and wholly able to live his life as if there is no God. Even atheistic biologists mention “the God gene,” which they describe as the cause, not a result, of the idea of the existence of God. Lots of people believe in Karma, “doing the right thing,” and the praiseworthiness of giving of oneself for others. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, these beliefs are irrational unless it A) these actions are in accordance with the laws that govern our immutable nature, and B) That any infractions of the laws of our nature are ultimately arbitrated by a supremely just being. Did Gandhi and Hitler end up in the same state? Utter non-existence? Are they harmed or benefited by the denigrations or praises of those who bear their memory? Why should I not be a Hitler, if I feel it makes me happy, and there is no objective moral norm intrinsic to our nature, nor an ultimate arbiter of this objective moral norm?
Why should we bother to do what is commonly considered “good,” unless there is an objective good that is specifically in accord with our true human nature? What is more, why should we do what is “good” unless it benefits us as individuals? How does an atheist dying for another person benefit him as an individual? It doesn’t! He is no longer an individual, but a mere corpse! An action that we recognize as the act that contains more goodness will necessarily make us happier, right? How can a mere lump of rotting meat be happy?
“Is it even a sacrifice if he dies and goes straight to heaven so that others can spend a bit longer in this brief prelude of a life, a life that is like the blink of an eye in all of eternity?”
Dale, in all honesty, if such a man is thinking clearly, no, it’s not a big sacrifice, when the cost/benefit ratio is considered. But it is difficult for many men to recognize and value what may come after suffering and death.
This earthly life is not, as you seem to say, a mere first chapter in a continuing saga. We are on a proving ground, and this life is the time that we are given to build ourselves into what we are supposed to be, and help convert others, both actions being done, of course, with the help of God. The Japanese, who had no knowledge of the words of Jesus, nevertheless recognized that we are to turn ourselves into better and better people. But better in comparison to what? The Japanese have a saying that, “In order to be perfect, a sword has to pass through the fire a thousand times.” But again, perfect in comparison to what? If we are to say one thing or one man is better than another, we have to have something against which we may judge the perfection. We cannot say “There is no such thing as perfection,” just as we cannot say, “There is no such thing as truth.”
In response to your question of whether it would be better for the man to shoot his sleeping child in the head to have her go to heaven, as I said above, we are on this earth for a reason. If God had ordained that every human should be a robot that is programmed to love and serve him, we would not be human, and we would not be on this earth. As it is, we are on this earth. We are called to know our natures in the light of God, and act accordingly. It is not in accordance with our nature to go about handing “Get into heaven free” cards to people.
This life is can be a source of happiness, and that is good. The happiness in this life is, on the other hand, a mere prelude of the happiness we hope to have in the next. We yearn for a perfect happiness. I think that if I had such a deep and perfect yearning for something, and believed it was impossible to ever satisfy, that I should go mad. I think that everyone who shares this yearning would go mad if they acknowledged their yearning existed, yet truly and wholly believed that a source to satisfy this yearning did not exist. People would literally die with despair. As it is, people despair all the time, because they put all their efforts into satisfying this infinite longing with all-too-finite lesser goods, whether these goods be houses, cars, clothes, food, alcohol or sex. Only the infinite itself can satisfy a longing for the infinite.
-Sans Authoritas
Most of your post is ignoring things I’ve already said and I’m not going to endlessly repeat myself. However, there are numerous cases of animals with instincts for species preservation over self preservation– octopi & salmon are a couple right off the top of my head but just watch Animal Planet for a few hours. Of course animals are more driven by instinct than humans as their brains aren’t comparable to ours but that doesn’t change the fundamental capacity for acting on behalf of the species over the self.
You’re trying to turn this around on me. You’re starting with a presumption that humans and other animals are fundamentally different in this specific way and then insisting I prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on you. When you say “in the way a human does”, what are you expecting from me? Do you want me to provide an example where a cat gave up it’s place in a lifeboat for it’s kittens? I’m hard pressed to recall a real life example of even a human acting in such a manner, so I have no idea how common it is. There are plenty of cases of people taking great personal risk to help other humans but we’ve already established animals do that too. The former takes a rather contrived scenario like the Titanic movie lifeboat scenario, and most of us just see those in melodramatic fictional movies, movies designed to pull our heartstrings. I will readily concede that I can provide no instance when a chimpanzee chose to stay behind so the others could escape back to Earth while he flipped the switch that would activate the explosives blowing up himself along with the asteroid that was hurtling toward Earth. Despite that, your claim rings rather hollow in the evidence of observable animal behavior.
Not if their faith is strong, but that’s the point of my post. Their faith isn’t really that strong. On some level they don’t confidently believe they’ll go to Heaven. If they did, they would not only be fearless of death; they would eagerly welcome it. If God rewarded people for sacrificing themselves for others, and if they truly believed it, they’d be eager to do it at the first available opportunity and it wouldn’t actually be a sacrifice at all. The fact that they consider it to be a praiseworthy moral act completely contradicts and calls into question the beliefs they claim to have.
Occam’s Razor makes human behavior and morality pretty straight-forward when you give us credit for the same instincts for the survival of the species as all the other animals. It takes some rather elaborate fables to support the presumption that we’re fundamentally different.
This yearning for perfect happiness you speak of… I just don’t know what to tell you. I of course have yearnings of all sorts and I satisfy those yearnings to varying degrees, but in general I consider myself pretty happy. I can always find things to complain about, but without those, I’m not sure I’d be able to recognize and enjoy the good things and the good times. I can’t even imagine what eternal perfect happiness would feel like but it sounds like an empty existence. My goals and desires are an important part of what motivates me to get up every morning and do things. It brings to mind the scene in Brainstorm where a guy hooks himself up to a loop of an orgasm and just plays it over and over and withdraws from the world around him. I certainly don’t feel like I’m going to go mad and I know a lot of atheists and they don’t seem to be going insane either. This sounds like a personal problem. I just can’t relate.
Dale, you are absolutely right about the dogmatic formulation, the question regarding the girl who would be better off killed in the eyes of her dogmatic father.
This is what is intrinsically offensive to me about dogmatic/afterlife religions like Christianity and Islam. They reduce all of experience to a singular question of belief in a particular deity. in such a formulation, the afterlife is what really matters. Indeed, even if the father went to hell for murder, if his daughter went to heaven, it would be an altruistic act- a pretty bizarre loophole indeed in the dogma.
Now, these beliefs are in conflict with their human instincts, but if they did truly believe, they indeed would want to die as soon as possible (of course suicide is part of the banned moral code.)
From a true Christian’s point of view, the middle ages were a vastly superior time, as a much higher percentage of people wound up going to heaven as compared to today.
As far as the perfect happiness, have you ever heard of the hedonistic imperative? check out http://www.hedweb.com
Dale, as I have repeated again and again myself on this topic, there is a difference between what is hard-wired into an animal, and a deliberate acceptance of death. An octopus is biologically hardwired to starve while protecting its young, just as it is biologically hard-wired into a salmon to die after it spawns. They die because it is built into their systems. They die as a part of their biological composition. We can die because we choose to die, not because we are biologically programmed to die. No animal except the human deliberately lays down its life to save another. Animals may take upon themselves grave risks, like the mother cat, but they do not seek death as a means! Humans do! Animals do not seek death as a means: they simply die in the process of trying to save their offspring. Do you see the difference between the two actions?
Every animal except the human being seeks to preserve itself if at all possible. You will never see any animal die protecting other animals except while looking out for its own continued existence at the same time. You will never see an animal stop running and offer itself as a sacrifice for the herd. They’re all running when they get taken down. Humans are different, and the difference is not just a higher biological complexity. We are not different because we merely apply, a posteriori, reasons to our laying down our lives. We have reasons, a priori: we do not have reasons merely because we are able to recognize them. The reasons exist before we ever choose to recognize them, and these reasons are inherent to our human nature, a nature that is radically unlike that of the animals.
-Sans Authoritas
That’s fascinating, Dave. I hadn’t heard of it, but it makes sense. I’m actually of the belief that we aren’t far away from the technology that will free our minds, the only part of us that really matters, from our limited biological bodies. To me it’s a natural part of our evolution as a species. I think it may even happen in my lifetime. Such an advance would render so many of our problems completely trivial, such as economics and medicine. It would also lead to an exponential rate of advancement in future knowledge.
Yes, Sans. You’ve repeated it but have failed to prove it or even to present it in a convincing manner. I’ve refuted every claim you’ve made on this topic with specific animal behaviors. I don’t claim to know what’s going on in the minds of animals, but I am inclined to believe, based on their behavior and for reasons that I have already described, that SOME animal species understand and accept their own deaths on some level with their limited minds. I can’t prove it definitively because I’m not Doctor Doolittle, but neither are you. Meanwhile, my assertions about the nature of the universe aren’t dependent on it while it appears to be a crucial part of your argument. You brought it up.
I am also inclined to believe that humans have lingering and useful instincts for the survival of our species as a whole. We experience fear of death on a primal level, and we also experience a primal desire to protect others, particularly our offspring and to a lesser extent younger people in general, which matches many animal behaviors and seems like a hard-wired instinct. You CAN attribute that to something else in a contrived manner, but it’s not necessary to explain it when instinct is the simplest and most likely explanation. It’s reasonable that we would incorporate that into our cognitive morality structures. I also see evidence that some animals can learn, make decisions, and be different from others of their kind to varying degrees. In short, I see a considerable difference of complexity of thought but no evidence whatsoever of a fundamental difference. Are you claiming to know the minds of animals? If so, convince us with something other than repeating the same claims with increasing insistence.
Yous guys need a publisher!
“That’s fascinating, Dave. I hadn’t heard of it, but it makes sense. I’m actually of the belief that we aren’t far away from the technology that will free our minds, the only part of us that really matters, from our limited biological bodies. . . .”
If they ever come up with such technology, Dale, knowing the hubris of man, the technology will be weaponized and be used to enslave others. We already have technology to liberate the mind from the body. It’s called T.V. During its introduction, it was hailed as an “amazing tool that for education.” Dynamite was a technology that was thought to be so horrible that it would end war. Not so much. Chlorine, phosgene and mustard gases followed on its heels quickly.
“Such an advance would render so many of our problems completely trivial, such as economics and medicine. It would also lead to an exponential rate of advancement in future knowledge.”
The progressivists have been saying this stuff for hundreds of years, with particular desperation and unfounded confidence in the past hundred years. Technology has merely increased the rate at which we can save or slaughter, it has not in itself made anyone more virtuous. It could, if the premise were true that we were merely biological machines. But it hasn’t. And won’t.
I agree that there is a certain degree of protecting others hardwired into our nature. We have an obligation to avoid harming others while trying to survive, but we have no obligation to lay down our lives for another. Preserving the species through self-preservation is a stronger instinct than preserving the species through protecting other individuals, do you agree? That is why a human being’s action is praiseworthy: he must first value, and then choose to ignore (meaning, wilfully override) the more powerful instinct. The octupus and every other animal dies in the process of protecting others. It it not the same as using death itself as a means of protecting others. When you have to train a dog to walk over storm drains because it’s afraid of them, no amount of coaxing will get them to cross. First, the dog must develop the association between obeying your commands, and the fact that no harm comes to it when it does obey. That is not overriding an instict, that is showing the instinct that there is no danger where there was perceived to be danger. Humans acknowledge that danger is real, and still pursue their ends. If you were to tell a dog to jump into a furnace, there are two options: it would give you the doggy version of “Oh, hell, no!” or it would jump in because it has never had reason to believe that your commands would cause it harm. It would not jump in because it recognized it was going to die, yet trusted that you had a good reason for it.
“In short, I see a considerable difference of complexity of thought but no evidence whatsoever of a fundamental difference. Are you claiming to know the minds of animals? If so, convince us with something other than repeating the same claims with increasing insistence.”
Considering we share so much DNA with so many animals, like dolphins and orangutans, it would seem that they should be capable of creating at least a rudimentary form of art, or music, or any evidence whatsoever in pleasure taken in such things. And to forestall any mention of the same, an elephant randomly smearing tinted colloids on a sheet of paper, and the actions of a bowerbird are not indicative of an appreciation of art any more than a fly flying toward ultraviolet light is indicative of art or appreciation of art.
-Sans Authoritas
Sans Authoritas wrote: “But it is difficult for many men to recognize and value what may come after suffering and death.
Dale wrote: “Not if their faith is strong, but that’s the point of my post. Their faith isn’t really that strong. On some level they don’t confidently believe they’ll go to Heaven. If they did, they would not only be fearless of death; they would eagerly welcome it. If God rewarded people for sacrificing themselves for others, and if they truly believed it, they’d be eager to do it at the first available opportunity and it wouldn’t actually be a sacrifice at all.”
Dale, this is completely true, except that there is a still a sacrifice (suffering undergone for a greater good. The fact that the benefit exponentially outweighs the cost does not erase the fact that it is still a sacrifice.) But note that by “many men,” I did not mean true believers. The Romans were amazed that Christian martyrs went into the arenas singing and smiling. When St. Lawrence was being burned to death on a grill, his last words were, “Turn me over, I am done on this side.” (His death was a result of his being told by the local ruler, “Bring me all the treasures of the Church within so many hours.” St. Lawrence went about the city, gathered all the sick, the lame and the poor, and brought them before the ruler, and said, “Here are the treasures of the church.” (Rulers don’t have a sense of humor, as we both know.) In Block 13 in Auchwitz, Maximilian Kolbe led the other condemned men in psalms and prayers. Singing came from the pits of Auchwitz. He went joyfully. A witness said that after his death, his face reflected a man who was utterly at peace. It is true: men who really believe that laying down one’s life for another welcome it eagerly. Needless to say, there are few such men. Whose fault is that?
-Sans Authoritas
Some people use guns for self-defense. Others use them to murder. The problem is a culture of violence; not the tool.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that no amount of going back and forth with examples is going to change either of our minds about the nature of other animals. We see the same things and simply interpret them differently. I guess we will have to leave it at that. We’ve each presented extensive thoughts on the subject and readers will come to their own conclusions, at least the few who have the patience to read pages and pages of comments.
Sans Authoritas wrote: “If they ever come up with such technology, Dale, knowing the hubris of man, the technology will be weaponized and be used to enslave others.”
Dale wrote: “Some people use guns for self-defense. Others use them to murder. The problem is a culture of violence; not the tool.”
Precisely my point: that a violent culture cannot be changed by technology.
“I think it’s pretty clear at this point that no amount of going back and forth with examples is going to change either of our minds about the nature of other animals. We see the same things and simply interpret them differently. I guess we will have to leave it at that.”
I’m with you. : )
-Sans Authoritas
And my point was that trying to prevent that technology will have the futility of gun control. Technology is neither good nor evil. It’s up to us to change the culture, but it is a tool. I would propose that the Internet is an excellent example of that.
Dale wrote: “And my point was that trying to prevent that technology will have the futility of gun control. Technology is neither good nor evil.”
What you say is true. That is not the point that I got from this statement, though:
“Such an advance would render so many of our problems completely trivial, such as economics and medicine. It would also lead to an exponential rate of advancement in future knowledge.”
You’re right, of course, to say that technology can render many problems trivial, much as vaccines have rendered polio and the measles trivial. But taking their place are diseases such as HIV, and newer, more technologically-advanced ways to kill people. Read the statement you made again. It really seemed as though you were saying that mere technology will in itself make everything a lot better.
Of course you realize (as I see now) that technology is a mere tool, like a gun, and as such, can be used for good or ill. But that statement didn’t seem to convey that notion too clearly. It seemed to place hope in technology in itself as an instrument of making people more rational and morally advanced. Like the “science” of eugenics.
-Sans Authoritas
Dale,
Reading your original post, it struck me that there is a big difference between one’s purported atheism and a claim of libertarianism while having a lot of validity. Atheism is a belief that there is no theistic being. It is not however mutually exclusive to agnosticism, the belief that one does not have enough information or that one cannot know for sure. If I see someone go around a corner to what I know to be a dead end, I believe he is still there. I also know he might have gotten out of his car and continued on foot past the dead end. Likewise, I’ve seen enough of the Bible to disbelieve both it and the God it describes. That doesn’t mean I don’t discount 100% the possibility of there being some unknown spirit.
Libertarian philosophy (or principles) encompass that 1/5 of the political philosophy spectrum as described on the Nolan Chart. The other four of course being statist, liberal, conservative and centrist. As has been pointed out by others, the chart does not have a single point up at the top called libertarian and the rest of the chart being damned statists.
George Orwell said, “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” So too, in a statist world, advocating more liberty is a libertarian act. Those who advocate minarchy are libertarians. I am one of those.
My minarchy comes not because I think government can reign itself in, but because I think it is our responsibility to do so. It may be a losing battle and maybe Jefferson was right about the blood of tyrants, but I think we have to try the path of least aggression first if the NAP is going to worth anything.
Also, it is my observation that people tend to project their own personalities onto others which is why it is hard for most anarchists to understand the depth of some peoples’ desire to control others. The day there is no government, someone will begin plotting on how to create one they control and my guess is, that person’s or group’s government will be worse than what we have now.
I consider the taxation required to run government immoral, but I also consider allowing the power vacuum to result in yet another government, probably tyrannical in nature, to be even more immoral.
Getting back to the atheism thing, you may have heard the expression credited usually to journalist Ernie Pyle, that there are no atheists in foxholes. I have a friend who’s mother recently had to decide between trusting medical technology or following her faith and refusing a blood transfusion. This devout Jehovah’s Witness accepted the transfusion. Upon hearing this, I immediately came up with, “There are no theists in hospital beds.”
And just as a christian will say, “you’re not really an atheist” so to do you say, “you don’t really advocate a state”. It’s absolutism to believe that your way is the only conceivable way and that all those who disagree must suffer some form of psychological or emotional damage. It’s a fools argument.
People who hold different beliefs more often than not hold them for specific reasons. Attack those reasons and not the people. Respect people enough to admit that they may have used reason and logic and came to a different conclusion. You may thing they are wrong and they may think you are wrong and the truth may never be known but at least you can treat people as if they actually took their beliefs seriously.
You sound like the capitalist ray comfort. Refusing to believe that there are legitimate arguments against what you adhere to. By decalring all those who disagree less than and damaged you are wrapping yourself in the same faith you condemn.
Good points, JWP. I’m not applying this description to everyone who disagrees with me equally. As I said, you can tell how strong someone’s faith in something is by their reaction to reasonable questions. Of course what is reasonable is a judgement call and open to further interpretation.
I do happen to believe that belief in the state (not advocating a state just to be clear) is an irrational belief. However, I accept that the faith of some is much stronger than others. In fact, I think those with the least fragile faith are those who are the most thoroughly statist. I think they don’t particularly see a problem with aggression and violence and so don’t see any inconsistency when the state provides exactly that. I’m planning to address this further in comics and blog posts, but minarchists seem to me to have the most fragile belief systems and the most high maintenance in terms of rituals to try to maintain that faith.
Speaking of bulls in a china shop… have you played Minotaur China Shop?
http://blurst.com/minotaur-china-shop/play