Outside the city of Atra Flumen, there lived a successful farmer named John. He worked the fields with diligence and tenacity. His hard work was admired by the entire city and countryside, and he was hailed as the exemplar of the good citizen: hard working and loyal to his friends and family. His greatest friend was his mentor Fredrich, who was quick and mighty of mind, contemplating matters beyond the concern or ability of most men.
However, there eventually came a year in which John lazily prepared for the harvest. His behavior lost him the majority of his crop. He feared for his reputation, and dreaded appearing the market to beg for alms, but he knew there was no alternative if his family was to survive the harsh winter.
Fredrich kept close eye on the troubles of his friend though, and on the dreaded day he arrived in the market before John. Before John could accept the degree of shame necessary for begging aid of his neighbors, Fredrich loudly announced to all present that he had in fact destroyed John's crops in a fit of rage at the honor the farmer recieved, while he the philosopher recieved none.
Upon hearing the revelation, the people of the city drove Fredrich away in a fury. They razed his house to the ground and declared him an exile from the city. His reputation thusly ruined by his own words, Fredrich drew away into hiding. The people then donated graciously, even excessively to help John's family, despite his protests and public declaration of distaste for charity on his behalf.
At nightfall, Fredrich appeared at John's house. The farmer angrily demanded to know how his friend could have betrayed his trust. The older friend calmly reminded John of what he already knew: that his own lack of foresight had caused the calamity. Fredrich had simply spared him public shame and humiliation, and had done so by destroying his own reputation. To all who cared to weigh in on the events, Fredrich was a monster; he had become entirely ostracised from the community.
Fredrich spoke to John, saying to him, "If all the world's indeed a stage, then what travesty is it to be deemed monstrous by the audience? To sacrifice public image and reputation is intensely difficult. I ask you my friend, would it be not have been infinitely easier for me to simply offer condolence as a wise old man is wont to do? In such a way I would endear myself to my peers and enhance my own position, all the while appearing both sympathetic and noble. But this serves my friend hardly at all. Instead, is it not truly noble to take the more difficult, unsung path? Rather than perform the useless but lauded duty of a friend as expected by the rabble, I take the blame upon myself. I am destroyed in their eyes, but what matters the opinion of the masses compared to that of a friend? If I am mentioned in the stories of our people I will be synonymous with betrayer and fiend. Take heed my friend, the noblest deeds are the ones that remain hidden from the sight of gullible sheep, and the greatest of men are all unknown."
11/23/10
11/16/10
Self-preservation
Every man, woman, and child is driven in myriad and sometimes inscrutable machinations of their own self-interest. A noble human being is constrained to his nobility by his own devotion, which he would not betray lest he lose his invaluable honor. A religious person is driven to serve their deity either by such lofty motivation as the nobleman or by more base desires for immortality and reward. A good samaritan helps the beleagured man because his conscience demands it; his good sleep demands it. I say this not to deprecate or devalue the actions of human beings, but only to establish that the human mind is irrevocably centered upon the only thing it can ever truly know: the ego. Motivations seem to be undeniably selfish, but are they? It would seem that certain actions can be carried out which would utterly ruin the benefactor, such as self-sacrifice unto death itself.
For the sake of this question, let us assume that death is indeed the end of life, so that we might avoid for a moment the unending squawking of theistic foolishness. After such assumption, let us imagine that one human being dives in front of a bullet for a person he has never met, sacrificing his life for the sake of a total stranger. Surely this is a selfless deed, is it not? The dead man will recieve no compensation; he will not receive so much as gratitude from the man who lives due to his heroism. It seems that the self-sacrificing man in the scenario not only disproves the idea that all actions ultimately feed the ego, but also shows that human beings are capable of acting against their own instinct toward the preservation of self.
And yet, such an answer seems unsatisfactory, if only because of my own vanity and arrogance regarding my ideas. Could it be that there is some sort of selfishness in such a selfless move? I say that there is; the man was no more altruistic (in motivation) than anyone else. If we could peer into the mind of this hero, might we discover that he understood the inevitability of his own demise, whether it be seconds or decades away?
I say that all who sacrifice themselves do so for the same reasons that guide other human decisions. They sacrifice themselves that they might transcend their mortality either by their legacy as heroes or by reward in a world after. The hero claims immortality for himself after the fashion of Achilles, though rarely in such magnitude. The more heroic his dangerous and potentially self-destructive deeds, the greater his legacy, the greater his legend, and the more long-lasting his immortality. It must be agreed that death in the service of some perceived "good" or "just cause" is far more attractive than a death stained with ignominy. In losing themselves they are able defeat the encroaching rot of the conqueror worm, which otherwise would not be denied.
The rational know that their days are numbered. For such men who are able to recognize cold truth and who are inclined in the direction of the heroic, it is not such a difficult choice to sacrifice oneself for another, since death approaches regardless of the movements made by men. Rather than wait for it, a hero meets it head on, and wins a small measure of infinity for himself.
For the sake of this question, let us assume that death is indeed the end of life, so that we might avoid for a moment the unending squawking of theistic foolishness. After such assumption, let us imagine that one human being dives in front of a bullet for a person he has never met, sacrificing his life for the sake of a total stranger. Surely this is a selfless deed, is it not? The dead man will recieve no compensation; he will not receive so much as gratitude from the man who lives due to his heroism. It seems that the self-sacrificing man in the scenario not only disproves the idea that all actions ultimately feed the ego, but also shows that human beings are capable of acting against their own instinct toward the preservation of self.
And yet, such an answer seems unsatisfactory, if only because of my own vanity and arrogance regarding my ideas. Could it be that there is some sort of selfishness in such a selfless move? I say that there is; the man was no more altruistic (in motivation) than anyone else. If we could peer into the mind of this hero, might we discover that he understood the inevitability of his own demise, whether it be seconds or decades away?
I say that all who sacrifice themselves do so for the same reasons that guide other human decisions. They sacrifice themselves that they might transcend their mortality either by their legacy as heroes or by reward in a world after. The hero claims immortality for himself after the fashion of Achilles, though rarely in such magnitude. The more heroic his dangerous and potentially self-destructive deeds, the greater his legacy, the greater his legend, and the more long-lasting his immortality. It must be agreed that death in the service of some perceived "good" or "just cause" is far more attractive than a death stained with ignominy. In losing themselves they are able defeat the encroaching rot of the conqueror worm, which otherwise would not be denied.
The rational know that their days are numbered. For such men who are able to recognize cold truth and who are inclined in the direction of the heroic, it is not such a difficult choice to sacrifice oneself for another, since death approaches regardless of the movements made by men. Rather than wait for it, a hero meets it head on, and wins a small measure of infinity for himself.
11/9/10
Don't Grant the High Ground
In debate with theistic advocates, it isn't hard to seek out their strategy. In defense of a being whose existence is, at the least, highly dubious that resides outside the normal rules of fact-finding, the tactic most used is to take something that most humans deem desirable and allow God to monopolize it.
It's pretty obvious that these things are: ethics, meaning, and cosmic purpose. The theist side assumes the existence of objective morality / intrinsic value, objective meaning, and cosmic purpose. Their scope is so limited that they can't perceive anything from a non-anthropic perspective, but let's ignore that for now. I believe it is a mistake to acknowledge the proposition that these attributes of the universe are desirable in the first place, thus ceding the "high ground," so to speak. I have seen in debates (most notably with William Lane Craig) where an atheist may play the game on the religious apologist's terms. By ceding this high ground, the audience or potential "convert" will wind up being more sympathetic to the apologist's emotional argumentation.
Put differently, instead of claiming, "yes, those things are nice but here's why I believe they don't exist," atheists could make more headway in obliterating the very idea that these are nice things. Let's begin:
1. Objective Theistic Morality
First things first, theists say that in order to claim God is tyrannical, one must allow for the fact that good and evil exist and the only way that can exist is with a higher authority than man. They never substantiate this claim, it is just made with no justification. Why can't man's opinion be the highest form of value judgments? Why do we need a celestial babysitter to declare that one action needs punishment and the other reinforcement?
I, for one, am not a moral realist in the sense that moral "facts" aren't really facts, but in no way does moral anti-realism (which doesn't deny some type of modified code in human behavior) follow from atheism. There are many defensible forms of atheistic morality, like Ideal Observer or Natural Law. Now many prominent atheist philosophers such as Nietzsche (who I'm closest to) or Camus or Sartre had their objections and were anti-realists in some form or another, but their positions need to be argued for or against and are in no way a given.
Secondly, referencing the main point of this piece, what is so great about having God tell us what is good and what is bad? The way this system is set up, it is supposedly objectively good to send the majority of humanity to rot in Hell. There's no way to appeal this sentencing and God has coerced you to belong in his system. At least with competing human moralities, there is some sort of cooperation and compromise so that the least amount of damage is done to each party. After all, according to Divine Command Theory, what we have is a being who promulgates something as being good irrespective of our opinions. A good example is placing prohibitions on human sexuality. If it makes us less happy and more uncomfortable, what is the point of morality? It ceases to serve us with any utility. At this stage, morality becomes a control mechanism. God can punish moderated envy, moderated lust, and moderated anger, all of which are important to individual health, for no other reason than merely classifying it as evil. The good/evil dichotomy is where religion has distorted our intentions regarding behavior. Instead of a dialectic of good/bad, desirable/undesirable, or smart/misguided, this system promotes an ultimate "us vs. them" mentality without really having to give a justification for why something is good and why something is evil. Instead of thinking critically about why things are to be applauded or avoided, God's authority stems from being a presupposed archon whose authority is not earned, and thus not evaluated reasonably and manifests itself as internalized fear. This separates our desires from our goals, and that causes emotional frustration.
So in a nutshell, what humans really want is freedom to overcome their limitations and seek desired ends in a reasonable manner that takes into consideration the abilities of others so that we aren't raging psychopaths, because that is our nature inherited from evolution. What the theist in this argument wants to do is coerce you into an all-or-nothing system. "You can't have that if you don't accept all the other baggage that our God provides, and if you don't like the baggage, that means you are rebelling against God." It's a very clever device, but one that we need not fall into.
2. Objective Meaning
The argument concerning life's meaning is another religious creation that offers an inflexible, all-or-nothing trade-off. As I believe Peter Atkins once put it, "theologians really make a living out of inventing questions and then denying that science can answer them." Either you accept Yahweh's plan for you to understand him, or you have to contemplate suicide and you may as well kill yourself since you have no meaning in life.
Again, is Yahweh's plan for us something that is desirable? Theists, again, make an interesting case that if you don't know Yahweh, then you can't experience how fulfilling his plan really is. So basically, "if you can convince yourself Yahweh exists and you convince yourself how fantastic his plan for you is, then you can fully appreciate his plan for you. And if you don't understand or appreciate his plan, then you're not trying hard enough." Again, more ham-handed reasoning.
Yahweh acts as a celestial dictator who coerces people into situations that they do not approve of for reasons they don't understand. I'm sorry, I don't like that system. His "meaning" is not my "meaning." If meaning in this sense is what we strive for, what we live for, and what we enjoy, then we have many sources for meaning. We humans can create our own meaning. This meaning may have its origins in many facets of life such as struggle against insurmountable odds, happiness, helping others for the apparent sake of helping others, etc. It is many things to many people. Human-created meaning need not be a one-size-fits-all solution as it can vary from individual to individual. Two secular thinkers who helped articulate this are the philosophically (somewhat) opposed Socrates and Nietzsche when they stated, "Know thyself" and "Become what you are" respectively. I don't know if better commands have been stated, and certainly anything the petty Holy Fuhrer Yahweh has uttered does not come close.
3. Cosmic Purpose
Cosmic purpose is something that can be desirable or undesirable to different people. Some people may feel the need for their lives to be dramatic on a grand scale and others do not. I believe it is a sign of emotional maturity to accept the fact that our lives were not intended, that we are accidents, and that nobody has plotted out what we make of our lives. It also gives us an extraordinary amount of freedom to act out as we wish.
There is no need to assume we are anything greater than what we are; a primate species evolved with the best known capabilities of abstract / logical thought and one of the highest forms of emotional capacity. Why do theists need to expect anything more? And while apologists of many stripes may harp on our lowly origins, as Darwin stated, I fail to see how that effects the human species in the here and now. What matters is not how we came to be, but where we are going. And being capable of explaining how psychological phenomenon can be reduced to neurochemical impulses does not diminish the grandeur of the subjective experience of neurochemical impulses. So I believe the idea of cosmic purpose ties into ideas about the soul and how humans aren't elevated above the other creatures of this planet, at least not in an arbitrary sense.
---------------------------------------
In conclusion, the offers on the menu presented by theism can be modified by atheists and implemented into our own individual repertoires. We don't need to be told what our meaning in life is, what can make us happy, or how to live a "good" life. What we need is to get in touch with ourselves and actualize lives that we think will accomplish all of these things. The largest failure of religion is to ignore the individuality of the human species and disregard the utter failure of top-down authoritarianism. And why wouldn't it? It is a by-product of the infancy of our species, one that was illiterate, uneducated, mystical, brutish, and fearful.
11/7/10
Desperate to be Unique
Amidst the massive crowd of rabble, which is still limited enough just to be numbered, a man cannot help but despair at his lack of worth. As the colony continues despite the death of a single ant, so too does the world of men continue without noticing the loss of an individual. Maddening horror envelopes any poor soul intelligent enough to recognize his generic existence but not outstanding enough to rise above it. To know that one is not unique even in the realization of insignificance is to take the full weight of existence onto one's shoulders. To bear that weight and endure that stark reality is courage, but for all too many it is a burden that cannot be tolerated. Escaping into delusion is not difficult, as indeed it takes only a few words to convince some that they are the deliberate creation of a caring deity, and some others believe they can become god-like themselves. Still others seek respite in delusions of grandeur, egregiously inflating their own egos and believing themselves superior by virtue of something beyond control, like race. Desperation to escape resounding truth is endemic of the cowardly and foolish.
In the glory of youth, the desperation to be exceptional is largely absent. Even if a child struggles to find self-worth it isn't a strecth of the imagination to believe that in some conceivable though far-off day, the child will achieve greatness. Teenagers and young adults are similarly protected by the sheer amount of time that is presumably open to them. Even if a life is rife with failure and disappointment, it is still quite difficult for cold, frank truth to entirely quash the dreams of glory.
At some point though, the dreamer is forced to wake. This point is commonly referred to as a mid-life crisis. It is quite aptly named, as it is indeed a crisis, and it could not be experienced before the onset of one's later years. Even if I, writing this very article, or you the reader were to summon the courage necessary to admit that our lives will more likely than not end in disappointment and paltry success at best, we could still not understand the depth of despair felt by those who have seniority of years. To think on despair is one thing, to have the experience forced upon oneself is quite another thing altogether. A man (or woman) cannot accomplish everything desirable in life, and since certain spheres must be neglected to the benefit of others, it is inevitable that regret will surface. This regret could be reasonably managed if the person still had the saving grace of time; their lack of time and recognition therein is the source of despair.
How might such feeling be combated? Success is ironically guaranteed to those who are weakest of temperment, as in their superstition they are easily convinced of their worth by virtue of worthlessness, they essentially believe themselves blessed because of their failures. This victory is founded on delusion, but it is a victory nonetheless, since many will go to the grave believing their lie without ever having the truth hoisted upon them. And thus they die undefeated, but still deluded and pathetic. If one is to truly triumph over inadequacy and impotency in the face of reality's all-consuming and crushing force one must be willing to admit a certain degree of failure. Not everyone will become famous, nor will everyone be remembered or glorified. One must renounce the need for such validation before true meaning can be established against the tides of nihilistic horror.
In the glory of youth, the desperation to be exceptional is largely absent. Even if a child struggles to find self-worth it isn't a strecth of the imagination to believe that in some conceivable though far-off day, the child will achieve greatness. Teenagers and young adults are similarly protected by the sheer amount of time that is presumably open to them. Even if a life is rife with failure and disappointment, it is still quite difficult for cold, frank truth to entirely quash the dreams of glory.
At some point though, the dreamer is forced to wake. This point is commonly referred to as a mid-life crisis. It is quite aptly named, as it is indeed a crisis, and it could not be experienced before the onset of one's later years. Even if I, writing this very article, or you the reader were to summon the courage necessary to admit that our lives will more likely than not end in disappointment and paltry success at best, we could still not understand the depth of despair felt by those who have seniority of years. To think on despair is one thing, to have the experience forced upon oneself is quite another thing altogether. A man (or woman) cannot accomplish everything desirable in life, and since certain spheres must be neglected to the benefit of others, it is inevitable that regret will surface. This regret could be reasonably managed if the person still had the saving grace of time; their lack of time and recognition therein is the source of despair.
How might such feeling be combated? Success is ironically guaranteed to those who are weakest of temperment, as in their superstition they are easily convinced of their worth by virtue of worthlessness, they essentially believe themselves blessed because of their failures. This victory is founded on delusion, but it is a victory nonetheless, since many will go to the grave believing their lie without ever having the truth hoisted upon them. And thus they die undefeated, but still deluded and pathetic. If one is to truly triumph over inadequacy and impotency in the face of reality's all-consuming and crushing force one must be willing to admit a certain degree of failure. Not everyone will become famous, nor will everyone be remembered or glorified. One must renounce the need for such validation before true meaning can be established against the tides of nihilistic horror.
11/3/10
Revolting Against Sunday School
What is the harm of church? After all, most people who grow up in Christian households don't feel the need for apostasy and many continue on in the tradition of their faith. They enjoy the solidarity, interconnectedness, and relationships that they build within the confines of church and see no reason to abandon it. In most places not called The Bible Belt, this is the extent of religion in America--It acts as, at most, a psychological deterrent against death and at least as an excuse to get out of the house and meet people.A few weeks ago some troll posted a message branding us as (sarcastically) "fiery apostates" for railing against religion. Basically the point was to mock strident atheists who go out of their way to study, debunk, and denounce religion because, as this Christian apparently saw it, religion isn't that big of a threat.
In a way, he's right. I never grew up in a very Christian household. I kind of did, but it was never shoved in my face. It was one of those things that lurked in the background of political discussions or discussions about life's circumstances and of course as a family we didn't like evolution, but those things are mostly peripheral. The point of having a family is to foster a loving environment and I had that, religion or no religion.
But for many people, my case is not typical. For many people, religion does act as a mind-forged manacle and shackles constructive thought. Many branches, like a lot of Mormon sects, resemble cultish behavior and prey on the vulnerable minds of children, most of whom literally believe in Santa Claus until the age of 12 or so before they start questioning his existence. And mostly, for me, it is the predation of defenseless minds that irritates me the most about religion and always has. Religion in general has many benign attributes, but ultimately it comes down to wish thinking and I personally despise wish thinking.
The other issue is that even in a benign setting such as Sunday School where little children learn about the Beatitudes, there is always that element of authoritarianism. There is always that obedience that church leaders extract out of the young and then project some type of social pressure on people who (how dare they!) consider apostasy because that is where their mind takes them. And that is mostly what we like to provide on this blog--A forum that encourages individual thought. Obviously there are many other topics discussed, but the overall message here is to think for yourself.
The other point I'd like to make is that atheism is not inherently evangelical. I don't enjoy talking about religion because my parents forced me to go to Sunday School (which they never did), but we just like talking about it. I personally find it insanely interesting. I'm not going to go out of my way to publicly question your personal superstition, but the minute you enter the arena of ideas, be prepared to experience some backlash. Christians in general tend to think they are being picked on by militant atheism when in reality they are experiencing blowback from not being even capable of considering other points of view. And this is the true and toxic nature of religion; it encourages blind obedience to authority figures who have not earned their status while at the same time promoting absolute certainty about what the best course of action is for humanity at-large. It is inherently a one-size-fits-all system and it is inherently totalitarian. That is why I rail against public religion and unfortunately, that is the form most religion takes.
The Curious Case of Christology
Here is how Wikipedia defines Christology:Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God. As such, Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) or teaching than with who or what he is.
I find it rather bizarre that an entire field of study can be used to study the existence of somebody who's existence is mildly dubious. But to set that aside for now, this entire field reeks of presuppositionalism. Of course, we a) have no way of knowing that Jesus existed (which I'm willing to grant) and b) know that his nature is going to be entirely derived from Biblical principles and whatever the scriptures say. The scriptures have been refuted somewhat as being plagarisms and their historical veracity has come into question with some gospels being determined as Canonical and then outright dismissing the gnostic or rival gospels. And of course they can't even agree on the details of Jesus' birth or how the tombs of Jerusalem opened up or numerous other details.
But even granting all of that, the religious' work is still ahead of them. Christology is basically an attempt to make the figurehead of the Christian religion seem somewhere coherent, at least enough for faith which, ironically, doesn't require coherency as one of its basic building blocks. In order to do this, of course, one must rely on the gospels as being holy writ and divinely inspired. There is no way to verify if such is the case and it must be totally taken on faith that the Biblical scriptures represent reality, and thus its legitimacy is presupposed off the bat.
But let's play the theistic game. Let's examine what they say about Christ. Many Christian apologists attempt to balance the fine line between faith and reason when making truth-apt claims about the universe. One of the key components of modern apologetics is that logic is part of God's nature. God can't make a four-sided triangle, for instance, because triangles are definitionally three-sided. But when I see those engaging in Christology attempting to balance the God-man nature of Jesus, I find a very difficult time in figuring out what they are even talking about.
The central thesis, to most Christians obviously, is that Jesus died for our sins. But as the definition above states, who was Jesus and what were his attributes in relation to the divine? There are those who say he is fully God and those who say he was fully human. I'm not willing to get into that as I admit up front that my knowledge of presumptuously useless and esoteric Christian theology is not up to par; however, I will be willing to call out those who say God cannot make a four-sided triangle yet can create a human being with a dual-nature.
First off, what is a dual-nature? Nobody knows what that means. No human has ever had a "dual-nature," even if they happen to have split brain psychologies. That is just an element of their psychology and nothing more. They are still fundamentally the same person. This dual-nature that theologians speak of seem as incoherent as a four-sided triangle. Basically what this is similar to is claiming that there exists a realm "outside of space and time" when our entire experiences (and that thought itself) have been in the context of space and time. We don't have a meaningful concept of what that could possibly be.
I hate to leave this post off here, but I am dangerously close into lapsing into theological noncognitivism. I have yet to see where a coherent case can be put forth that Jesus was half-man half-God or any variation of that sort. Ultimately it seems like a load of nebulous windbaggery.
11/2/10
Are Animals Truly Inferior to Human Beings?
The most obvious answer arises instinctually. Of course the life of an animal is inferior to that of a human being; the existence of an animal is incontrovertably less valuable than that of our own species. But can this emotional reaction to the question be defended, or must it be attributed to simple and unthinking anthropocentricism? Without invoking some vague and outmoded concept such as the soul, can human beings truly be regarded as more important than other living creatures? More succinctly, is speciecism defensible? It is foolish to deny the first answer, the one born of emotional and instinctual outcry in favor of one's own brothers and sisters. The urge of instinct burns as powerfully in the human animal as in any other, it merely takes guises made possible by superior intelligence. Such guises are so brilliantly wrought that one might almost forget that instinct underlies all thought. The question is then whether one of these guises, namely logical construct, has any power that might be brought to bear in defense of human superiority.
Let it not be denied, human beings are in all essence nothing more or less than animals. We are simply the most intelligent and therefore most powerful of any creature known to have arisen thus far. It is extremely important to recognize that the separation between man and beast is one of structured stratification and not essential difference of nature. Other animals display the capacity for traits that have traditionally been viewed as the domain soley of humanity. Higher animals (stratification is obvious in this label) in particular are often motivated by that which was once thought exclusively human: the motivation of action by feelings of compassion or cruelty. Mammals universally care for their young and pack animals behave in similar fashion to primitive human tribal societies, demonstrating a strong impulse driven by an equally powerful need for hierarchy and domination of the strong. Juxtaposed to this human-like solidarity for the sake of survival is the similarly human activity of dolphins who hunt and kill porpoises for the sole sake of dislike and sport. It can be inferred that the killing is done for the sake of entertainment because the porpoises did not threaten the dolphin's food supply and they are not consumed by the dolphins after they are killed.
The similarity of lower creatures to ourselves, coupled with their lesser but still notable and laudable intelligence invites the objection to any notion that human beings are in some way better or their lives more valuable by virtue of simply being human. If the only difference is in degree, and not principle, if human beings are simply a small step away from their animal cousins, is it logically defensible that human need always take precedent over animal life? Is it not heinous to put animals to death for the sake of feeding omnivorous human beings?
The answer is complex, but not unduly so. It is my opinion, and that is likely all it can ever be, that human beings are more important and more valuable than animals to such an extent that a single human's is worth an entire species of animal. Of course losing an entire species of animal would likely lead to problems for the human species as well, I am assuming here that the choice is more simple: either the human being lives or the animal species lives with no consequences to follow. Putting aside emotion, which of course has long concluded the answer, human beings are logically more valuable for the simple reason that they are the highest form of life known to exist. Everything that is admirable in the behavior of animals exists to a far greater measure in humans. Obviously the opposite is true as well, human beings have a greater capacity for cruelty and capriciousness than do animals. But humans alone have such developed instinct as to allow room for mercy and self-sacrifice. Humans have created ideals for themselves that are more important than immediate benefit, which is the most far-sighted goal of any animal. The very query that is the subject of this article is evidence of human superiority, no animal would hesitate to eat another animal if it was hungry, but a human being might conceivably be possessed of mercy that gives less thought to itself than to another. Humans are as much bound to instinct as any other animal, but their intelligence allows for the manipulation of instinct to better ends than can even be conceived by lesser creatures.
Is it right to slaughter animals for food? Is harshness and cruelty justifiably directed towards them? Our outcry for mercy and restraint when we could easily destroy, and our ability to discern the need for such restraint in our own self-interest demonstrates the logical conclusion long ago determined by the heat of emotion: human beings are superior to animals and their lives are more valuable.
Let it not be denied, human beings are in all essence nothing more or less than animals. We are simply the most intelligent and therefore most powerful of any creature known to have arisen thus far. It is extremely important to recognize that the separation between man and beast is one of structured stratification and not essential difference of nature. Other animals display the capacity for traits that have traditionally been viewed as the domain soley of humanity. Higher animals (stratification is obvious in this label) in particular are often motivated by that which was once thought exclusively human: the motivation of action by feelings of compassion or cruelty. Mammals universally care for their young and pack animals behave in similar fashion to primitive human tribal societies, demonstrating a strong impulse driven by an equally powerful need for hierarchy and domination of the strong. Juxtaposed to this human-like solidarity for the sake of survival is the similarly human activity of dolphins who hunt and kill porpoises for the sole sake of dislike and sport. It can be inferred that the killing is done for the sake of entertainment because the porpoises did not threaten the dolphin's food supply and they are not consumed by the dolphins after they are killed.
The similarity of lower creatures to ourselves, coupled with their lesser but still notable and laudable intelligence invites the objection to any notion that human beings are in some way better or their lives more valuable by virtue of simply being human. If the only difference is in degree, and not principle, if human beings are simply a small step away from their animal cousins, is it logically defensible that human need always take precedent over animal life? Is it not heinous to put animals to death for the sake of feeding omnivorous human beings?
The answer is complex, but not unduly so. It is my opinion, and that is likely all it can ever be, that human beings are more important and more valuable than animals to such an extent that a single human's is worth an entire species of animal. Of course losing an entire species of animal would likely lead to problems for the human species as well, I am assuming here that the choice is more simple: either the human being lives or the animal species lives with no consequences to follow. Putting aside emotion, which of course has long concluded the answer, human beings are logically more valuable for the simple reason that they are the highest form of life known to exist. Everything that is admirable in the behavior of animals exists to a far greater measure in humans. Obviously the opposite is true as well, human beings have a greater capacity for cruelty and capriciousness than do animals. But humans alone have such developed instinct as to allow room for mercy and self-sacrifice. Humans have created ideals for themselves that are more important than immediate benefit, which is the most far-sighted goal of any animal. The very query that is the subject of this article is evidence of human superiority, no animal would hesitate to eat another animal if it was hungry, but a human being might conceivably be possessed of mercy that gives less thought to itself than to another. Humans are as much bound to instinct as any other animal, but their intelligence allows for the manipulation of instinct to better ends than can even be conceived by lesser creatures.
Is it right to slaughter animals for food? Is harshness and cruelty justifiably directed towards them? Our outcry for mercy and restraint when we could easily destroy, and our ability to discern the need for such restraint in our own self-interest demonstrates the logical conclusion long ago determined by the heat of emotion: human beings are superior to animals and their lives are more valuable.
Onward Christian Soldiers
It is incredibly easy to laugh in the face of Christians who so righteously declare themselves the rightful property of their god as his creation, all the while smiling their slavish grins and hoping for the onset of another world. Of course to an individualist, and to presumably most who claim the title of atheist, such feeling is ignoble and disgusting. It is difficult for one of humanistic inclination to avoid exasperation and sadness to hear another human being announce with pride their own slavery and worthless nature, deserving of death but delivered by grace. However, Christians are human beings first, and they too yearn for nobility over deprecation. They simply believe that nobility is impossible given their mere existence, tainted as they believe they are by unavoidable sin. In some variations of the cult it is believed that, once saved, they are able to boldly serve their god and please him. It is these less deplorable sects that attention is now directed, so that their conception of duty and honor might be given deserved respect.
Envision the following scenario: A great king rules over the entire world with an iron fist. By necessity he is unyielding and harsh, but his loyal soldiers never doubt that he does love his kingdom and its citizens. They willing throw themselves into harm and humilation's way to defend their sire. In defending his honor they honor themselves. They largely fight against those who have twisted the vision of their king into something perverse and repugnant, or against those who have denied the name of the king outright. These groups are viewed respectively as either foolishly misguided or insolently undisciplined. The lot of those soldiers who are truly loyal is sorry indeed, and thankless. They toil all of their days in unceasing service, with little to no reprieve even imagined. Yet they trust in their king and hope beyond hope that they might find rest and peace in a world beyond their mortal lives, seeking to spread this message of salvation when possible.
Discipline, honor, and duty. These concepts are rightully glorified by the best of mankind, and it would be false to say that no Christians can be found amid such a host. Their service to their god captures all their virtues, and it can be assumed that this enough for some without even the promise of eternal reward. That being said, this idealized version of Christianity, and of noble Christian knights standing amid a sea of barbarism and insolence is obviously false to anyone not under the heel of self-delusion. The king described above is not the Christian god, since Yahweh knows no necessity, and has no reason to be cruel. Despite the mendacity of the scenario above, it is important to consider that such a viewpoint could be the driving force behind the faith of at least some sheep found amidst the herd. Rather than slaves, they are loyal centurions carrying out a will commanded by honor and duty which they might not understand but they always trust to be for the best. To say that this notion is misguided is indeed a laughable understatement, but how wonderful is it to know (or at least hope) that our Christian brothers are not uniformly slavish and cowardly?
Envision the following scenario: A great king rules over the entire world with an iron fist. By necessity he is unyielding and harsh, but his loyal soldiers never doubt that he does love his kingdom and its citizens. They willing throw themselves into harm and humilation's way to defend their sire. In defending his honor they honor themselves. They largely fight against those who have twisted the vision of their king into something perverse and repugnant, or against those who have denied the name of the king outright. These groups are viewed respectively as either foolishly misguided or insolently undisciplined. The lot of those soldiers who are truly loyal is sorry indeed, and thankless. They toil all of their days in unceasing service, with little to no reprieve even imagined. Yet they trust in their king and hope beyond hope that they might find rest and peace in a world beyond their mortal lives, seeking to spread this message of salvation when possible.
Discipline, honor, and duty. These concepts are rightully glorified by the best of mankind, and it would be false to say that no Christians can be found amid such a host. Their service to their god captures all their virtues, and it can be assumed that this enough for some without even the promise of eternal reward. That being said, this idealized version of Christianity, and of noble Christian knights standing amid a sea of barbarism and insolence is obviously false to anyone not under the heel of self-delusion. The king described above is not the Christian god, since Yahweh knows no necessity, and has no reason to be cruel. Despite the mendacity of the scenario above, it is important to consider that such a viewpoint could be the driving force behind the faith of at least some sheep found amidst the herd. Rather than slaves, they are loyal centurions carrying out a will commanded by honor and duty which they might not understand but they always trust to be for the best. To say that this notion is misguided is indeed a laughable understatement, but how wonderful is it to know (or at least hope) that our Christian brothers are not uniformly slavish and cowardly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
