An atheist decalogue

Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments:

The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

  1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
  2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
  3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
  4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your
    husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not
    by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and
    illusory.
  5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
  6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
  7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
  8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement,
    for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a
    deeper agreement than the latter.
  9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
  10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

I don’t necessarily disagree with all of these points, but it is remarkable to observe far they fall short of the original Decalogue, even though the original was produced with considerably less human history upon which to draw.  Let’s compare them, one commandment at a time.

One: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.”

The Decalogue sets down the basis for an objective and universal morality.  Russell, on the other hand, undermines any possibility of morality, but science as well, by establishing uncertainty as his foundation.

Two: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
Russell: “Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.”

While the problem of graven images is somewhat mysterious, lacking any basis for distinguishing right from wrong, Russell is forced to resort to a demonstrably false justification for what would otherwise be a reasonable claim.

Three: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
Russell: “Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.”

Again, the commandment is clear, though its import is unknown.  But it is still superior to Russell’s, which again relies upon an observably false justification.

Four: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Russell: “When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your
husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not
by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and
illusory.”

Russell scores a half-point here because he has the sense to limit his commandment to an exhortation, although he again sabotages his position with a false justification.  We aren’t even sure when the sabbath day is, or understand how to keep it holy.

Five: “Honour thy father and thy mother.”
Russell: “Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.”

This commandment is the basis for civilization.  Russell’s is the road towards barbarism.  Not only is the justification again false, but the commandment is intrinsically pernicious.  Legitimate authority merits respect, it is only illegitimate authority that does not.

Six: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Russell: “Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.”

This is Russell’s first truly coherent point, but it can’t compare in significance or rhetorical power to the original.

Seven: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”
Russell: “Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”

And here the essential triviality of the atheist exposes itself again.  Once more, the justification is observably false.  The importance of inviolate marriages, on the other hand, is integral to sustainable societies, as is becoming more and more apparent in their increased absence.

Eight: “Thou shalt not steal”
Russell: “Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement,
for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a
deeper agreement than the latter.”

Now Russell is just babbling.  Intelligent dissent does not necessarily imply any agreement at all.  And what percentage of the populace is “valuing intelligence as you should” likely to apply in any meaningful manner anyhow?

Nine: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Russell: “Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.”

It is a pity Russell has the need to produce a justification, even a fairly solid one, for an otherwise strong commandment.  But that points back to the flaws in his first commandment and his failure to establish a moral warrant.  Russell’s commandment is literally stronger than the original, although the latter is usually taken to be metaphorical and more broadly applied than its literal meaning.

Ten: “Thou shalt not covet”
Russell: “Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.”

 So, envy is fine, so long as one is envying the happiness of those who are genuinely happy.  This is a pernicious doctrine.

It is fascinating, is it not, to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century.

By taking God out of his equations, the atheist loses everything, because he destroys the foundation upon which so much of what he values is constructed.


The importance of small-t truth

This quote from the Swiss mathematician Euler sums up my response to those who raise questions about whether it would be better, or if I would be more a effective polemicist, if I took more care to avoid those uncomfortable facts and dangerous truths that might cause someone, somewhere, to feel hurt or otherwise offended.  This is from the beginning of Defense of the Divine Revelation:

The perfection of understanding consists of the knowledge of truth, from which is simultaneously born the knowledge of good. The principal aim of this knowledge is God and His works, since all other truths to which reflection can lead mankind end with the Supreme Being and His works. For God is the truth, and the world is the work of His almightiness and His infinite wisdom. Thus, the more man learns to know God and His works, the further he will advance in the knowledge of the truth, which contributes just as much to the perfection of his understanding.

The greatest perfection of understanding consists, therefore, of a perfect knowledge of God and His works. But since such knowledge is infinite, no understanding of it is possible. Consequently, the sovereign perfection of understanding can only be attributed to a single God. Man, in his state, is only able to grasp this knowledge to a very small degree. However, with respect to this, there can be a very considerable difference that is based on the diversity of abilities to understand, so that one man might grasp much more of this knowledge than another….

The knowledge of truth is the necessary foundation for the knowledge of good. For a known truth is reputed to be good, insofar as it can contribute something to improve our condition; and since God is the source of all truth, it is also rightly so that God is named as the ultimate good. The knowledge of good presupposes the knowledge of truth, and thus, even if a man strives to guide his understanding to a greater degree of perfection, he acquires at the same time a more extensive and distinct knowledge of good. It is clear that the knowledge of evil is also included in this, for he who knows good knows how to distinguish it from evil.

This, I suspect, is why the Bible makes a particular point of declaring woe to those who declare good to be evil and evil to be good.  The more small-t truth a man understands, the greater his knowledge of both good and evil.  Therefore, the more truth a man possesses, the more he possesses the ability to do either good or evil; this is why we can simultaneously discern considerable truth in historical documents such as Mein Kampf and The State and Revolution while decrying the uses to which Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin put their superior understandings.

But neither attempting to ascertain the truth or providing evidence to establish it can ever be considered anything but good, because it is necessary in order for their to be knowledge of good.  To paraphrase what Euler points out, the knowledge of truth is a prerequisite for the knowledge of good.  We cannot know what is right, we cannot determine what action is correct, if we do not first distinguish what is false from what is true.

And we cannot expect to understand even that portion of the Truth of which we are capable of comprehending if we intentionally turn our backs on the truth, not even if we do so in the name of St. Diversity or general good will to men.


The map is still not the territory

Notice how the New York Times is always afraid for Muslims in non-Muslim countries, while remaining mostly indifferent to the plight of non-Muslims in Muslim countries:

After decades of peaceful coexistence with the Buddhist majority in the
country, Muslims say they now constantly fear the next attack. Over the
past year, they say several violent episodes across the country led by
rampaging Buddhist mobs have taught them that if violence comes to their
neighborhood, they are on their own. “I don’t think the police will protect us,” Mr. Nyi Nyi said.

The neighborhood watch program, a motley corps of men who check for any
suspicious outsiders and keep wooden clubs and metal rods stashed
nearby, is a symbol of how much relations have deteriorated between
Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

About 90 percent of the country’s population of 55 million is Buddhist, with Muslims making up 4 to 8 percent… The root of the violence, which has left around 200 Muslims dead over
the past year, appears partly a legacy of colonial years when Indians,
many of them Muslims, arrived in the country as civil servants and
soldiers, stirring resentment among Burmese Buddhists. In recent months
radical monks have since built on those historic grievances, fanning
fears that Muslims are having more children than Buddhists and could
dilute the country’s Buddhist character….

Some Muslims with means have fled to Malaysia or Singapore. Muslim-owned
businesses are losing Buddhist customers. A growing Buddhist movement
known as 969 that has the blessing of some of the country’s leaders is
campaigning for a boycott of Muslim products and businesses and a ban on
interfaith marriages.

I imagine the Burmese people have remembered what Americans and Europeans have forgotten. They have observed the examples of Nigeria, Paris, and Londonistan. They have learned the lesson: the Paynim always comes to conquer, however humbly he may enter.

“The suggestion that Muslims leave the country has been a common refrain
during the violence, which bewilders many Muslims who have always
considered themselves Burmese. Mr. Khin Maung Htay, his father and his
grandfather were all born in Myanmar.”

What of it? This merely shows the intrinsic falsehood of the multicultural mantra, which is that nationality is determined by government bureaucracy and geographic location.  After three generations Mr. Khin Maung Htay is not considered to be Burmese by the Burmese people because the map is not the territory and there is far more to cultural integration than filling out the necessary paperwork.


White smoke spotted

“The Catholic church has chosen a new pope. White
smoke is billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, meaning 115
cardinals in a papal conclave have elected a new leader for the world’s
1.2 billion Catholics. The new pope is
expected to appear on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica within an
hour, after a church official announces “Habemus Papum” – “We have a
pope” – and gives the name of the new pontiff in Latin.”
And a million conspiracy theorists held their breath… and were disappointed.

“Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina has been elected the new leader of the Catholic Church. The 76-year-old – now known as Pope Francis I — was the archbishop of Buenos Aries and was appointed by Pope John Paul II. Bergoglio became the first pope from the Americas elected and the first from outside Europe in more than a millenium.”


Mailvox: where are the miracles?

DL has a question concerning the apparent absence of Old Testament miracles:

I would like to say that I have been reading your blog for over half a year, maybe a little bit longer now. You write about a lot stuff that I have thought for years, it has just given me the evidence and confidence to speak my opinions besides just sitting quietly by while people say stuff I don’t really agree with.

The point of this email is to ask your opinion on a problem I came across during a debate I was having with a friend over the existence of God. This debate has been going on for a while and slowly the tides is turning from him controlling the debate to about a mutual battlefield. The idea of God being omniderigent really put a cap over some of his arguments.

Things were going ok until I was asked the question of “Why doesn’t God do any of the big miracles that he did in the bible today?” What he meant by this is the parting of the Red Sea, destroying a city with fire, and raising people from the dead. I was unable to come up with a completely logical solution for this question. I done some research on apologetic websites on why God would do this and the answers are a little unsatisfactory and doesn’t really answer the question in a logical way.

I would think the answer is fairly obvious.  First, God clearly does miracles for specific reasons.  Consider the repeated response of the Israeli people to His miracles; they kept returning to their false idols and their evil ways, and rejected Him for an earthly king.  Why would it surprise anyone if He stopped bothering to intervene on their behalf when they repeatedly turned their backs on Him after witnessing them?  Jesus himself had the people turn on him despite his miracles and even pointed out that people would not believe regardless of what they had seen with their own eyes.

Second, what would the point of any such divine miracles be?  The Bible makes it clear that there will those who believe without seeing, and Richard Dawkins makes it clear that even if God Himself appears and tells him that he is wrong about His existence, he will not believe.

When X doesn’t happen, the correct question is not “why did X not happen?” but “why does X happen and is there reason to have expected it to happen in the first place?”


The Pope resigns

Sic transit gloria olivæ:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church.

After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.

I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.

However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.

And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.

With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

Fascinating.  Gentlemen, you may start your conspiracy theories.  Wherefore art thou, St. Malachy?

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves
in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis
diruetur, & Judex tremêdus judicabit populum suum. Finis.

La prossima domanda: chi e’ papabile?

“Three
names are most prominent: Cardinal Angelo Scola, the archbishop of
Milan; Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops;
and Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, archbishop of Genoa.

Cardinal
Scola, 70, is highly esteemed by the pontiff, who moved him from the
Patriarchate of Venice to Milan, one of the largest and most important
sees in Europe. He is a brilliant, if at times recondite, theologian, a
major supporter of the New Evangelization and a leader in
Catholic-Islamic dialogue. His election could be hampered by internal
divisions among the Italian cardinals.

Cardinal Ouellet, 68, is a
Sulpician and served as archbishop of Quebec from 2002 to 2010 before
taking over as head of the powerful Vatican office that oversees the
appointment of the world’s bishops. Critics point to the lamentable
state of the Church in Quebec during his tenure and wonder if he would
be able to reinvigorate the faith in the West.

Cardinal
Bagnasco, 69, is very well known among the Italian and European
Cardinals and has a reputation for intellectual heft. He is also
president of the influential Italian Bishops’ Conference.”


Faith as economic artifact

Right on the socionomic schedule, the growth of the irreligious population begins to slow:

After years of marked growth, the size of Americans who identify with no religion slowed in 2012, according to a study released Thursday.  Since 2008, the percentage of Americans who identify as religious “nones” has grown from 14.6% to 17.8% in 2012, according to the Gallup survey. That number, which grew nearly one percentage point every year from 2008 to 2011, grew only 0.3% last year – from 17.5% in 2011 to 17.8% in 2012 – making it the smallest increase over the past five years….

Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, says these results suggest “that religion may be maintaining itself or even increasing in the years ahead.”  “Our current ability to look at it over five years with these big surveys suggests the possibility that the growth [of the nones] may not be inexorable,” Newport says….

Atheist and humanist activists disagree and pushed back against the Gallup study.

Given that the vast economic depression that began in 2008 still hasn’t even been officially recognized, it should be no surprise that the pendulum has merely slowed, and not turned entirely.  I find it amusing that the atheists and humanists are so openly anti-science; one wonders what, precisely, their argument for the continued decline of religion might be founded upon.

What should actually concern the atheist and humanist activists is not the socionomic prediction that non-religious identification will decline as economic conditions continue to worsen.  What should bother them is that the growth in religious “nones” considerably outpaces the growth of those willing to identify themselves as atheism.  Not only do Low Church Atheists not identify with High Church Atheists, they often have a more favorable view of the religious than they do of their “fellow” atheists.

As for the inevitable appeal to “the youth”, the linear projections never pan out for the obvious reason that young people are stupid, inexperienced, and clueless.  Eventually, most of them grow out of it.


Never go full retard

I have to seriously wonder about the sanity of anyone who is genuinely concerned about the world ending in 2012 due to the Mayan calendar.  Remember, we’re talking about a people who were so collectively stupid that not a single one of them ever had the astonishingly brilliant idea of using the wheel to move things more easily from one place to another:

Ahead of December 21, which marks the conclusion of the 5,125-year “Long
Count” Mayan calendar, panic buying of candles and essentials has been
reported in China and Russia, along with an explosion in sales of survival
shelters in America. In France believers were preparing to converge on a
mountain where they believe aliens will rescue them. 

I’m assuming most of this is pure media look-at-the-loonies hype.  But not all of it is a media invention.  Now, I suppose it’s not totally impossible that a group of people who spent centuries dragging heavy things from point A to point B because the concept of an “axle” was beyond every single one of them had some means of calculating the World Reboot, but I am a little dubious, to say the least.  I’m merely surprised the Mayan calendar didn’t end in “fiver”.

Meanwhile, secularists continue to scoff at the Bible even as the events predicted in it keep coming occurring, one after another.  I’ve observed the pattern over the course of my lifetime.  First they scoff.  “Europe will never be one kingdom.”  “No one will ever buy things with a mark on their hands”.  “There is no Israel”.  “What government beheads anyone anymore?”  Then, when it comes to pass, they claim what was previously asserted to be impossible can’t possibly have anything to do with what was very clearly laid out nearly two thousand years ago.


And the Scouts of Britain fall

I have little doubt this decision will mark the beginning of British scouting’s long decline into irrelevance:

The Scouts are to drop their historic rule that teenage recruits must declare religious belief, the movement’s leaders said yesterday. In future boys and girls who join the organisation will be allowed to declare themselves as atheists and make a pledge of honourable behaviour that makes no mention of God. The retreat from religion marks a break with a tradition begun in 1908 when the movement’s founder Robert Baden-Powell wrote a Scout Promise which required a vow to ‘do my duty to God’.

It’s really rather remarkable how many organizations are so willing to commit suicide in the name of inclusion and accommodation with the secular world.  Especially when it is so obviously unnecessary; membership in the Scouts had grown by nearly 17 percent in the last 12 years.

Perhaps the Scouts will prove different than all of the various mainstream churches that have declined into irrelevance by moving into the world and away from God.  But I doubt it.  Atheists will doubtless opine that they can’t see any possible reason why scouting should decline just because they are permitted entry, and yet, we see the same pattern play out again, and again, and again.


Mailvox: the ethics of hypocrisy

RE asks about the hypocrisy of the religious:

I am a longtime reader of your blog, which I have found to be very helpful over the years.  Also, your book the Irrational Atheist is a God send.   I hoping that you would give me your take on something.  I recently had “discussion” with my older brother on religion. My brother stated “religion is bullshit, its made up by man, its full of hypocrites.” He further explained the reason he doesn’t go church or practice his faith in anyway is because everyone that goes to church are hypocrites.

I am sure every church has its large share of “hypocrites”, but I feel he is being unreasonable.  I know it can be difficult to find the right place to fellowship with others, but I still find value in going to church, praying, and reading the Bible.  Can you please provide me another or your intelligent and witty rebuttals to his concern? 

First, relatively few of the religious, or anyone else for that matter, actually fits the proper description of hypocrisy, which is defined as follows:  a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

Most people do not feign to having principles they do not really possess, but rather, fail to live up to the standards of those principles. What RE’s brother fails to realize, as do most people who regularly observe hypocrisy around them and make a meal of decrying it, is that professing ideals and failing to live up to them is not usually an indication that the profession is false, only that the professor has failed.  While it is possible for such failures to be a sign of the profession being false, it is far from being conclusive evidence of it.

Failure is not, in itself, necessarily indicative of hypocrisy.  Moreover, it makes no sense to accuse most Christians of hypocrisy, in that Christian theology expressly and specifically declares that all, without exception, are fallen.  No one is perfect.  No one is worthy.  One can more reasonably question if a self-righteous person is actually a Christian than to claim his self-righteousness is indicative of his hypocrisy being a consequence of his religion.

As for a rebuttal, I would suggest the following: the only reason you think they are hypocritical is because they have standards.  Why do you believe that a complete absence of standards is more indicative of good character than apparent hypocrisy? I mean, say what you like about the tenets of Christianity, dude, at least it’s an ethos.