"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."--Plutarch
Thursday I rallied, I protested, I watched, and I listened as 5,000 or so Portland residents gathered to send a message that we are pretty pissed off. "At what exactly?" numerous media personalities asked. We know. And they also know. Conservatives dismiss us as a rabble, a mob (Lars Larson), stinky and unemployed (Ann Coulter), and of course "useful idiots" of a George Soros-planned-union-supported socialist power grab (Glenn Beck). Typical stuff from the far right. But I have learned in life that the louder someone yells, the more aggressively someone attempts to marginalize a point of view, then the more scared they are about the validity of their own position. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", don't ya know.
I, of course, can't speak for everyone in the occupy movement but I suspect that the "demands" of the protesters cannot be summed up in a 30 second sound bite. Mine certainly can't. We're talking about 30 years of government policy here; to be able to condense it to an "acceptable length" for the media is like trying to drive from Portland to Seattle on one gallon of gas into a headwind. There are indeed many grievances the occupy movement puts forth but I contend that these many branches have but one taproot: Government Policy.
Deregulation, the continued encroachment of corporate interests into the political process, free trade agreements, and tax codes, to name a few, have so ludicrously tilted the playing field that it is now almost impossible to hide it any longer. Hence the protests and corporate media marginalization. And before you think this anger is merely a progressive phenomena, aimed solely at conservatives, I will argue that BOTH parties are responsible for this debacle.
While Republicans are an easy target because of their pro-business platform, many Democrats are just as guilty. It is no longer about parties, it is about income disparity. Instead of an 'R' or a 'D' after their name, I suggest that we start using 'M' to show these politicians' true party affiliation. Millionaires make up approximately 1% of all US population according to 2010 census data, yet they comprise 66% of the Senate and 41% of the House of Representatives. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075586-503544.html Millionaires may not write all our legislation but they have a super majority in passing or killing it, as all bills must be passed by both houses with exactly the same wording. Millionaires run our country and quite frankly they don't care about the 99% until election time. Meanwhile, they enact policies that further enrich the few and increasingly punish the rest.
That's it. That's what we are pissed about. The evidence is irrefutable. Our country is teetering on depression simply because we have elected millionaires who, for the last 30 years, have looked out only for themselves. To cover their tracks, they would sometimes throw the 99% a bone, to occupy our attention, to mislead us, but it's now impossible for them to hide anymore. Never mind that the IMF issued a report that shows that gross income disparity is BAD for the economy, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/imf-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/2011/10/06/gIQAjYADQL_blog.html , never mind that corporate profits continue to increase http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/visualizing-booming-profits/ while few jobs are created. Never mind that 10% of the population holds 80-90% of stocks and bonds in the country http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html and stocks are those things that corporations pay dividends on when they are profitable. I could go on and on with the "never minds", but you get the idea. The continued greed of the wealthy is so utterly transparent that people are finally protesting these injustices.
So when the media ask "what are you demanding?", I will simply say we are demanding that Congress enact policies and laws that benefit the 99% of Americans. The 1% have had 30 years of getting everything they want. It's our time now. Period.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Big Wake-Up?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."--Goethe
A friend posted this on Facebook, well, a picture of a woman holding a crudely-made sign bearing those words. And, it rung true; it was a touchstone; one that made me realize why there are so many in our country who vote against their best interests in a vain attempt to hold onto freedoms long since reduced. Thomas Frank and Paul Krugman have long suspected such things, and I have gleaned much from their writings. But it is my supposition that rather than realize that we are no longer free, many cling to a nostalgic view of America, reinforced by the rich, where the American Dream was alive and if government just stepped out, then the dream would be real once again.
Conservatives speak of "founding principles" as if they have some magical quality. To be sure, America's experiment in democracy was indeed a revolutionary leap forward in self-governance and personal freedoms. But, what most fail to understand is that principles DO NOT equal policy. Principle is Santa Claus; policy is that if one is good they will receive based on that goodness. Principles are the virtues; policies seek to reward virtue and punish vice. It is only when people marry principle and policy that change is affected. When people and legislative bodies hide behind principle and enact policies that continually nullify the principle of forming "a more perfect union", then it is time to call BULLSHIT.
Conservatives have long railed against any type of program that would lead to "socialism". While the specter of communism is long since dead, you can't turn on Fox News or an AM radio without hearing the words "class warfare" and "income redistribution" almost daily. Ironically, I don't recall ever hearing these terms during the later stages of the cold war in which I grew up. Labor unions, once a powerful force in the rust belt state I grew up in are have been castrated in the last 30 years by "policies". Still, unions are a favorite target of conservatives in our times, as well as government regulations, and any taxation on the wealthy. Listen to talk radio and you will here these three items talked about over and over and over as proof of America's move toward "socialism". These 3 things are lies and the Occupy Wall Street protests indicate that fewer people are believing them.
LIE #1: "Unions are socialist power brokers that will destroy free enterprise". The data suggest otherwise. In 1981 21% of Americans were part of a union. Last year that number was a mere 11%. Right to work states, NAFTA, and continuing globalization (all things that aid corporate interests) are government policies. After fully decimating private unions, conservatives have now turned to public unions. Legislation in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio has sought to strip away union rights. In reality, American unions are in terrible shape and becoming increasingly marginalized. Unions are, and have always been, a counter-balance to unfettered corporate power. Without that balance, well, look around.
LIE #2: Government regulation prevents business from achieving its full profitability". Regulation serves an important purpose: to keep the big train of capitalism from going off the rails. While it is often cumbersome and sometimes seemingly inane, regulation insists that business be safe, responsible, and not too risky in its sole enterprise: to maximize profit. When regulation is implemented, there is grumbling and cries of "I'll go out of business!" but the simple truth is that the American business community did quite well during the age of heavy regulation 1930-1980. Deregulation in recent decades of the financial, energy, and telecommunication markets directly led to the S&L crisis in the 80's, The Enron fiasco, the World Com collapse, and the current economic shit storm in which the world finds itself. Deregulation and, to a lesser extent "defunding" of government regulatory agencies such as the FDA, USDA, EPA, and the MMS has led to oil spills, coal mine disasters, increased outbreaks of food borne illnesses, and destruction of the family farming culture. Regulations may indeed retard profit, but it certainly doesn't "kill jobs" or put people out of business.
LIE #3: Taxes hurt "job creators" and "the rich already pay most of the income tax". This one is my favorite. Since 1979, 80% of Americans have seen their share of income distribution DECREASE while the top 19% have seen a 28% increase and the top 1% has seen a staggering 123% increase in their share of the nation's wealth. Even more frightening is the fact that 10% of Americans control almost 75% of Americans' NET WORTH. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph . And we are still looking for the jobs. There may indeed be class warfare going on in America but it sure as shit isn't the kind Fox News talks about on a daily basis. A small group of people has benefited greatly from policies, not principles. Is it not just to ask them to pay a bit (3%) more to "promote the general welfare"?
And now some precognition from one of my favorite people ever (2005).
I have long suspected the coming plutocracy. I watched as factories in my Ohio hometown closed or relocated to non-union states, turning a once prosperous middle-class town into a shit hole rife with drugs, gangs, corrupt government and a poverty rate that tops 20%. The wealthy stayed that way and the middle class collapsed, resulting in distrust, fear, and blame. Conservatives want you to blame the government, or the latino, or the black; anybody but the real culprit: the top 1% and how they continually manipulate government to their ends.
It's all smoke and mirrors, good people. The Citizens United case, which basically allows for unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns without accountability, began to wake up some other people to this continuing problem. Now, if you look at the citizens united website, you will see an incredibly conservative outfit that steeps itself in the "founding principles" of our nation http://www.citizensunited.org/ . Their tag line is "Dedicated To Restoring Our Government to Citizens' Control", yet their lawsuit against the Federal Elections Commission seeks to allow only corporate citizens to control the government. Think about it: if we are out to dinner and I have 1 million dollars and you have only 10, I think we will be drinking the type of wine I want.
Perhaps the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is the first stirrings of people realizing they have been duped. As corporate profits continue to increase, it is the workers who suffer. The constant threat of lay-offs compels workers to work longer for less money and less benefits. As union power decreases, a worker's recourse is diminished as well. I don't seek socialism but I seek, and I suspect most Americans do as well, a safe, reasonable workplace where our efforts are valued and our successes rewarded. We want a modicum of security so that we may choose to take risks to enrich ourselves and our communities. If I know that I am just a piece of equipment to my company, why should I care? If I know I am trusted and valued as a worker, I have a personal interest in continued success. As my dear friend Christine noted, with her characteristic flair "We cut you hair and your grass, teach your kids, police your streets, put out your fires, cook and serve your food, keep your power on and your plumbing working: DO NOT FUCK WITH US!"
It is indeed true that conservatives wish to "take America back" but I fear that they want to take us back to the 1890's. Let's hope more people become awake to this growing, but not insurmountable tide against what's left of the middle class. Because if the middle falls there is nothing to support either end.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Anti-Science in America..well, part of America
The United States is still the most technologically advanced country in the world (or number 2, depending on the criteria) but in the realm of science and math education, we are nowhere near the top; 23rd and 30th in math. (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights.asp). This is indeed disheartening news. Our society is becoming more dependent upon science and technology each passing day, yet we are falling behind.
While the above clip is just a goof, and I am not in any way suggesting eugenics or any "Social Darwinism", we have very real problems regarding the scientific literacy of our nation. When I was 4 I wanted to be a paleontologist, at 8, an astronaut, and at 17, I wanted to be an engineer. My last teaching gig saw me interact with, and teach bright students, but students with analytical skills so deficient, that few, if any, loved science. Still, our children are bright and motivated, and despite the surliness that surrounds teenage life and attitudes, I do not see our country heading toward the realm of "Idiocracy". Yet. However, I see a consistent rise in various groups and lawmakers espousing such nonsensical "science", that I do indeed fear for our collective future.
I grew up in a time (and place), where evolution was taught to me at my CATHOLIC SCHOOL! It was a great high school. I took genetics, botany, advanced physics, chemistry, and biology. Not once was 'god' ever mentioned in those classes. I graduated in 1985, two years before the Supreme Court finally struck down the teaching of creationism in public schools. I am including an original ABC news link just so you can see the same arguments are still being put out by groups today. (http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/creationism-public-schools-unconstitutional-10179175). While the constitutionality of such laws are repeatedly struck down, the most recent and famous being the 2005 Dover, PA trial (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.TnlHS09ApbY) conservative christian groups continue to attempt to bring creationism into the public schools. Recently, no fewer than 7 state legislatures floated "academic freedom" bills to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. I contend that the great danger is not in the legalities of the 1st Amendment, but in the reactionary nature of Christians and Muslims worldview due to their slavish devotion to a single piece of literature (the Bible and Koran, respectively).
So, why this incessant attempt to inject religious doctrine into our science classrooms? Conservative Christians most likely believe that most diseases and infections are brought about by microorganisms; a belief which agrees with the germ theory of disease (1822-Pasteur). If they use any electronic device to make their living, they are proponents of the electromagnetic theory, put forth in the 19th Century. And, in the most obvious example, if they push a dish off a counter, it will most likely fall downward; you know, the theory of gravitation. Why is the theory of evolution, also a 19th Century product so incredibly distasteful and suspect?
The simple explanation is that Christians not only cherry-pick their scripture, but also their science to fit their belief system. The same "test-observe-report" process that is used in the theories mentioned above is at the core of our investigation of the natural world. To embrace it for some and refute it for others is another example of the cognitive bias I wrote about previously. And a theory, in science, carries a lot of weight. The term theory has a very different definition in science, as opposed to events we witness daily in the world. In common terms, a theory is often interpreted to mean an idea or a supposition to a conundrum. No doubt we have all seen this on the innumerable crime shows on TV. But, in those cases, a theory is just for the exact matter at hand; and is not applicable to every crime that has been committed. In science, a theory must work in all cases that can be observed and tested. If it doesn't stand up to repeated testing, it is refined or discarded outright.
Sadly, creationist ignorance regarding evolution does not stop at their improper use of the word 'theory'. "Survival of the fittest" is another term they twist into a pretzel of stupidity. To them it means the strong survive and gave rise to social Darwinism and eugenics. To an extent they are right but they, as the Nazis before them, misunderstand what the term means in science. In Biology, the term 'fitness' simply means a fitness to reproduce and does not necessarily refer to only strength and size. "Natural selection is random" is another thing you will hear them say. While genetic mutations are indeed random, there is NOTHING random about natural selection. If you have adaptations that allow you to thrive in a particular environment, you'll be more genetically fit, fuck more, have more offspring that will share that adaptation, etc. There is so much ignorance about this theory in conservative circles, either willful or not, that it scatters the imagination.
A gallup poll shows that only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) and as church attendance of respondents increased, this drops to a paltry 24%. This IS NOT a hallmark of a society that is forward thinking; in fact it is quite the opposite. And, as we all have seen, the Tea Party favorites like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all believe in Creationism, no matter what term you use for it. Scientific literacy is not knowing the atomic mass of Iron (55.8) or the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.8m/sec squared. Those are just facts. Scientific literacy is a way of thinking that helps solve problems. And we are faced with many problems right now. Science self-corrects itself; not so with religious dogma. Would you vote for a candidate that believed the earth moved around the sun? Or that the world was flat? Or that disease is caused by "bad air"? So why does evolution get shit on by these people? At a time when our children are falling behind in school, do we really want to bring this nonsense into the classroom?
The simple truth is that evolution and natural selection is a VERY strong theory. It has been tested for over 150 years and continues to satisfy the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Intelligent design should not be kept out of science classrooms because of the first amendment, although that is the only reason that matters to our litigious society; it should be kept out because it is NOT science! 99% of people that say evolution is "just a theory" are most likely conservative evangelical Christians who want their worldview to dominate this country. They are running for school boards all over the country and some of them are running for president. Okay, maybe the idiocracy video at the top is a little more ominous than I had hoped.
While the above clip is just a goof, and I am not in any way suggesting eugenics or any "Social Darwinism", we have very real problems regarding the scientific literacy of our nation. When I was 4 I wanted to be a paleontologist, at 8, an astronaut, and at 17, I wanted to be an engineer. My last teaching gig saw me interact with, and teach bright students, but students with analytical skills so deficient, that few, if any, loved science. Still, our children are bright and motivated, and despite the surliness that surrounds teenage life and attitudes, I do not see our country heading toward the realm of "Idiocracy". Yet. However, I see a consistent rise in various groups and lawmakers espousing such nonsensical "science", that I do indeed fear for our collective future.
I grew up in a time (and place), where evolution was taught to me at my CATHOLIC SCHOOL! It was a great high school. I took genetics, botany, advanced physics, chemistry, and biology. Not once was 'god' ever mentioned in those classes. I graduated in 1985, two years before the Supreme Court finally struck down the teaching of creationism in public schools. I am including an original ABC news link just so you can see the same arguments are still being put out by groups today. (http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/creationism-public-schools-unconstitutional-10179175). While the constitutionality of such laws are repeatedly struck down, the most recent and famous being the 2005 Dover, PA trial (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.TnlHS09ApbY) conservative christian groups continue to attempt to bring creationism into the public schools. Recently, no fewer than 7 state legislatures floated "academic freedom" bills to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. I contend that the great danger is not in the legalities of the 1st Amendment, but in the reactionary nature of Christians and Muslims worldview due to their slavish devotion to a single piece of literature (the Bible and Koran, respectively).
So, why this incessant attempt to inject religious doctrine into our science classrooms? Conservative Christians most likely believe that most diseases and infections are brought about by microorganisms; a belief which agrees with the germ theory of disease (1822-Pasteur). If they use any electronic device to make their living, they are proponents of the electromagnetic theory, put forth in the 19th Century. And, in the most obvious example, if they push a dish off a counter, it will most likely fall downward; you know, the theory of gravitation. Why is the theory of evolution, also a 19th Century product so incredibly distasteful and suspect?
The simple explanation is that Christians not only cherry-pick their scripture, but also their science to fit their belief system. The same "test-observe-report" process that is used in the theories mentioned above is at the core of our investigation of the natural world. To embrace it for some and refute it for others is another example of the cognitive bias I wrote about previously. And a theory, in science, carries a lot of weight. The term theory has a very different definition in science, as opposed to events we witness daily in the world. In common terms, a theory is often interpreted to mean an idea or a supposition to a conundrum. No doubt we have all seen this on the innumerable crime shows on TV. But, in those cases, a theory is just for the exact matter at hand; and is not applicable to every crime that has been committed. In science, a theory must work in all cases that can be observed and tested. If it doesn't stand up to repeated testing, it is refined or discarded outright.
Sadly, creationist ignorance regarding evolution does not stop at their improper use of the word 'theory'. "Survival of the fittest" is another term they twist into a pretzel of stupidity. To them it means the strong survive and gave rise to social Darwinism and eugenics. To an extent they are right but they, as the Nazis before them, misunderstand what the term means in science. In Biology, the term 'fitness' simply means a fitness to reproduce and does not necessarily refer to only strength and size. "Natural selection is random" is another thing you will hear them say. While genetic mutations are indeed random, there is NOTHING random about natural selection. If you have adaptations that allow you to thrive in a particular environment, you'll be more genetically fit, fuck more, have more offspring that will share that adaptation, etc. There is so much ignorance about this theory in conservative circles, either willful or not, that it scatters the imagination.
A gallup poll shows that only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) and as church attendance of respondents increased, this drops to a paltry 24%. This IS NOT a hallmark of a society that is forward thinking; in fact it is quite the opposite. And, as we all have seen, the Tea Party favorites like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all believe in Creationism, no matter what term you use for it. Scientific literacy is not knowing the atomic mass of Iron (55.8) or the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.8m/sec squared. Those are just facts. Scientific literacy is a way of thinking that helps solve problems. And we are faced with many problems right now. Science self-corrects itself; not so with religious dogma. Would you vote for a candidate that believed the earth moved around the sun? Or that the world was flat? Or that disease is caused by "bad air"? So why does evolution get shit on by these people? At a time when our children are falling behind in school, do we really want to bring this nonsense into the classroom?
The simple truth is that evolution and natural selection is a VERY strong theory. It has been tested for over 150 years and continues to satisfy the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Intelligent design should not be kept out of science classrooms because of the first amendment, although that is the only reason that matters to our litigious society; it should be kept out because it is NOT science! 99% of people that say evolution is "just a theory" are most likely conservative evangelical Christians who want their worldview to dominate this country. They are running for school boards all over the country and some of them are running for president. Okay, maybe the idiocracy video at the top is a little more ominous than I had hoped.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Morality and cognitive bias
Exodus 21: 20:
- "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Above are two "morally acceptable" precepts (remember the definition of morality from the last post) set down in the bible. According to the majority of conservative, evangelical Christians, the bible is, at the very least "the inspired word of god" and to some, inerrant and to be taken literally. Now, if we ask an American evangelical "is slavery is immoral?", and they say yes and then we follow by asking if the golden rule IS moral, and they say yes as well, the conclusion is obvious.
Our morality comes from us and not from scripture. And the rule of law is indeed the codification of those morals. No doubt that sometimes this morality is proper (our 19th Amendment) and sometimes misguided (our 18th Amendment). In 1772, a case came before the British courts to rule on whether or not a slave in England could be sold to work in the colonies. Since there was no legislation on slavery in Britain at the time, English Common Law was used. The ruling can be found here (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm). America's legal system is based on English Common Law (with the exception of Louisiana), not biblical law, or sharia, or halakha. I find it alternately amusing and frightening that those so worried about sharia becoming part of our legal system (don't worry, it can't and it won't), are the same people who tend to have a "biblical worldview".
Cognitive bias is simply a distortion in the way we perceive reality. There are oodles of them and my 2 semesters of Psychology does not allow me the luxury of "expert testimony". But, we all have them as they are a product of evolutionary processes. They can be highly beneficial in certain decision-making processes, such as assuming an unknown animal is dangerous (i.e. perhaps erring on the side of caution so as to continue to live). However, in our modern world, there are social and belief biases that can go a long way in helping to understand how people frame moral arguments.
My opening example addresses a couple of these biases. Here are a couple more. When a judge rules on legislation that is an anathema to conservative tenets, such as legal marriage of homosexuals, the cry of "Activist Judges who legislate from the bench" is heard. However, if the judge rules in favor of a conservative belief, they speak of the importance of the "rule of law" in our country. Another example would be our 10th Amendment. Here in Oregon, voters passed the "Death with Dignity Act" was passed in 1994 and affirmed again in 1997. However, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft (an evangelical Christian conservative) attempted to supersede Oregon's state rights with federal action. This was applauded by the conservative right, despite Oregonians voting on it twice. However, just 2 years later, when the public voted to amend Oregon's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples only, conservatives once again applauded the "rule of law" and "states rights". Hmmmm..does anyone else see the bias here?
Sometimes these biases border on hypocrisy. Conservative and religious states (who claim that our morals come from god) in the USA rank near the top in teen pregnancy ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2009/01/08/teen-birthrates-where-does-your-state-rank) divorce rates and porn subscriptions (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/06/27/opinion/20090627blowchart.html); all no-nos according to the "good book".
Again, recognition of these biases not only compel us to critically self-examine our own bias but also to attempt to base moral behavior on something empirical, rather than an outdated belief system. In the same way that Copernicus and Galileo disproved the biblical contention of a earth-centered universe using empirical data, so we should look at moral questions with the same tools in an attempt to be as unbiased as possible.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Moral Atheism? YES!
I'm an atheist. I know now that I have reduced credibility as atheists are one of the "least trusted groups" in America according to a University of Minnesota study in 2006 ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1). Although the data is a little bit old, I think that it generally still holds true. Super! I always wanted to be a minority!
I have been told, directly and obliquely, that atheists lack a "moral compass" or that we "don't believe in anything". I disagree. Most Christians point to the bible for their moral code, Jews use the Decalogue, Muslims, the Koran and the hadith (since there are very few rules and regulations in the Koran itself). However, I always ask that is it probable that any pre-Mosaic societies had a code of proper(moral) behavior for the group? Of course! There is even one written down: The famous "Code of Hammurabi", which predates the 10 commandments by at least a couple of centuries (1700 BCE as compared to approximately 1450-1513 BCE various souces). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, morality is defined as"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior". "If we have written proof of a legal code that outlined the morals of a society that existed before any of these distinctly monotheistic codes were "handed down", then it is safe to assume that moral (good or right) behavior existed well before a "god" got involved. I am sure that, universally, people had problems with somebody fucking their wife, stealing their livestock, or murdering a friend or family member long before the idea of "one true god" ever became fashionable.
Turning to the idea of an "absolute morality", i.e. one that crosses all cultural and ethnic lines (a religion-based morality) versus "relative morality", i.e. that morality is dependent upon the situation, we atheists often hit a hurdle in the debate. I agree that moral relativism is indeed a slippery slope but I put forth that many things that are accepted in the bible as moral that are no longer considered moral in the majority of developed nations, most notably slavery and women's equality. You would be hard pressed to find any American that would be pro-slavery. So if biblical morality has changed due to new ideas, rational thought, and debate, we can say that there is no true absolute morality (god given or otherwise).
In 2010 Sam Harris published "The Moral Landscape--how science can determine human values"(http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211). Harris' thesis is very intriguing. He seeks to define moral behavior as something that "leads to human flourishing" and immoral behavior as something that "leads to human suffering". So, by Harris' reckoning, we can begin to close the gap of moral relativism using empirical data and science to determine what behavior helps humankind flourish. Harris freely admits that this hypothesis is a work in progress but it is a fascinating new look at one of the world's oldest questions. I'll place a video of Harris speaking (20 minutes but well worth it)
There is plenty of biological and sociological evidence regarding moral behavior that is not religiously based. Many religious people counter that Hitler and Stalin were atheistic mass murderers therefore they are examples of atheists having no morals. This logic is incredibly poor, so please don't post it in comments. For example I could say that they both had mustaches, so therefore all people with mustaches are immoral. Absolute morality most likely does not exist at this time, and I am heartened that moral relativism is being examined scientifically. I'm a good, moral person and I am an atheist.
I have been told, directly and obliquely, that atheists lack a "moral compass" or that we "don't believe in anything". I disagree. Most Christians point to the bible for their moral code, Jews use the Decalogue, Muslims, the Koran and the hadith (since there are very few rules and regulations in the Koran itself). However, I always ask that is it probable that any pre-Mosaic societies had a code of proper(moral) behavior for the group? Of course! There is even one written down: The famous "Code of Hammurabi", which predates the 10 commandments by at least a couple of centuries (1700 BCE as compared to approximately 1450-1513 BCE various souces). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, morality is defined as"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior". "If we have written proof of a legal code that outlined the morals of a society that existed before any of these distinctly monotheistic codes were "handed down", then it is safe to assume that moral (good or right) behavior existed well before a "god" got involved. I am sure that, universally, people had problems with somebody fucking their wife, stealing their livestock, or murdering a friend or family member long before the idea of "one true god" ever became fashionable.
Turning to the idea of an "absolute morality", i.e. one that crosses all cultural and ethnic lines (a religion-based morality) versus "relative morality", i.e. that morality is dependent upon the situation, we atheists often hit a hurdle in the debate. I agree that moral relativism is indeed a slippery slope but I put forth that many things that are accepted in the bible as moral that are no longer considered moral in the majority of developed nations, most notably slavery and women's equality. You would be hard pressed to find any American that would be pro-slavery. So if biblical morality has changed due to new ideas, rational thought, and debate, we can say that there is no true absolute morality (god given or otherwise).
In 2010 Sam Harris published "The Moral Landscape--how science can determine human values"(http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211). Harris' thesis is very intriguing. He seeks to define moral behavior as something that "leads to human flourishing" and immoral behavior as something that "leads to human suffering". So, by Harris' reckoning, we can begin to close the gap of moral relativism using empirical data and science to determine what behavior helps humankind flourish. Harris freely admits that this hypothesis is a work in progress but it is a fascinating new look at one of the world's oldest questions. I'll place a video of Harris speaking (20 minutes but well worth it)
There is plenty of biological and sociological evidence regarding moral behavior that is not religiously based. Many religious people counter that Hitler and Stalin were atheistic mass murderers therefore they are examples of atheists having no morals. This logic is incredibly poor, so please don't post it in comments. For example I could say that they both had mustaches, so therefore all people with mustaches are immoral. Absolute morality most likely does not exist at this time, and I am heartened that moral relativism is being examined scientifically. I'm a good, moral person and I am an atheist.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Opening Thoughts
Why a blog? Well, to be entirely honest, I like to write and I like the free exchange of ideas. For most of my posts I will use citations whenever necessary as I would like this to be as scholarly as possible. An example of this would be citing sources on empirical data to advance my argument or to contradict those with whom I disagree. However, at times there will be posts that are purely my opinion about the issues of the day.
I encourage feedback but please, don't be a douche! Of course, if you are a douche, you'll probably ignore my request in the first place! Such are the slings and arrows of the internet.
I encourage feedback but please, don't be a douche! Of course, if you are a douche, you'll probably ignore my request in the first place! Such are the slings and arrows of the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)