A Moral Point

My morality differs from the religious. I make moral choices after a careful analysis of the harm and good that will come from my actions, not because it is an absolute crime. Moral decisions should be based on what will benefit humanity the most, not whether or not it will piss off a temperamental Bronze Age deity.

I read a book a couple of years ago called In Praise of Doubt. In it, the authors argued that in our western world there are two competing forces for moral decisions. The first is religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalists see moral decisions as absolute. There can be no compromise because there is no doubt. Their morality comes straight from God, and I guess God is infallible.

The other is called pluralism. The authors incorrectly associated pluralism with science. Many people in science do share this spineless position on morality however. And many anthropologists are the worst of all offenders. They are trained to rarely make moral decisions, and try to understand different social groups on their terms. They would never be able to say, “I think it is fucked up that many Arab women are forced to be illiterate, and made to feel ashamed of their body.” There is no certainty behind any moral decisions. Pluralist morality has too much doubt.

The authors argued that moral decisions should be in between fundamentalism and pluralism, between not enough doubt and too much. For a long time I thought this was an important concept. I left religion because of the harm I saw in dogma morality and its resilience to change moral policies. And too much doubt also seemed harmful to me because there are object harms and crimes that are part of culture but also cause great human suffering. Moderation between two conflicting forces is a fallacy. In between does not equal truth. So much of my mental energy was wasted at this time trying to settle moral decisions in a precarious balance act.

I have completely left this spectrum. It no longer works for me. I no longer understand what it means to be in between confidence and a refusal to make a position. I do not know why moderation between extremes is a good platform.  If an extreme position works it should not be dulled through moderation.

I propose a new moral system; an improvement on the moral balancing act suggested by In Praise of Doubt. But instead of a doubt spectrum, I want a point. An area without human suffering and misery. At the highest point of human good and happiness. Where every individual’s brain feels the greatest possible joy, pleasure, and contentment. A point extremely contrasted from the worst possible anguish humans can experience.

Unfortunately however, this point does not exist and we cannot be exactly sure what it looks like. But we can make objective comparisons of existing structures to bring us closer to our hypothetical paradise. It is not difficult to see that genital mutilation does not lead to greater happiness. Or that the forcing others to be illiterate will not lead to a productive, satisfied society. These are objective moral comparisons looking for human good and not ethnocentrism. These comparisons should be done through the scientific method to eliminate human bias.

I think the Navajo way of passing on family names is pretty excellent. The western way of patrilineal name inheritance has developed harmful sexual norms. European men were required to enforce strict and limited sexual behavior, because they had to be confident that when they passed their name onto a son there was no mistake of the child’s paternity.  The harmful puritan sexual paranoia and the remnants that continue today could have been avoided if we had used the morally superior Navajo way. It is pretty obvious who a child’s mother is. Cultural sexual norms would have been less oppressive to our humanity. It is not difficult to objectively critique ourselves. Searching across the world; taking the morally superior and rejecting the destructive.

There is more than one path toward the point of moral perfection. Our cultures can be different and remain on an equal moral ground. Our wide human diversity can all fit inside the point. I want to separate equal cultural norms with dysfunctional moral mores. But we should not excuse obvious tangents and blatant directional errors toward the moral point. This is not ethnocentrism. I will not refrain from attacking cultures that violate human rights in order to avoid offense. I will call out harmful moral structures for what they are; irrational, dogmatic, and not based off of a desire for maximum good. We cannot have world peace until everyone adopts a logical, rational, universal morality.

The Useless and Abstract God Concept

The word “God” is tricky and can cause complications for both theists and atheist. It is an abstract concept without any solid definitions backing it up. It can be used for pantheism like Einstein, as a sense of wonder and immensity in the universe as for Stephen Hawking, or as the personal, loving caring God of monotheists. My concept of “God” is merely an idea, a social concept, but all of us are burdened with the broad inaccurate word, “God,” making our speech clumsy.

 Atheists deny the existence of “God.” But since the concept of God is so broad and abstract, I cannot logically deny all of these versions of God. Some of these new sacred canopies respond to the powerful force of empiricism by creating a God concept that is unfalsifiable.  Useful scientific theories must be falsifiable; there must be some kind of reality check. I cannot deny the existence of Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot. I cannot deny Pantheism or Deism and if everyone in our world had a belief like this, I would not be an active atheist. I would still think that some are inconsistent with reality, but these beliefs currently do little harm. But I can logically deny the personal, loving, powerful entity that directly interacts with our reality; the way monotheists define God.

One important step on my way out of religion and theism (I was raised Mormon) was Karen Armstrong’s book The History of God. She describes how people’s perception of God has changed drastically over time. Revision to the God concept was based on popularity, force, and theological debate, but it was never consistent for more than 300 years. Karen Armstrong was once a catholic nun, now she remains a theist; but barely. Her version of God is so diluted, reduced and non-personal that Richard Dawkins remarked that if she would describe god that way to any church congregation, they would call her an Atheist. Dawkins said, “They would be right.”

It is not useful to use these definitions of God. I do not care what a bunch of specialized theologians have come up with about Gods “true” nature. I care about the way average Americans and theists relate to the social concept of God.  I care about the way this harms, emotional abuses, and intellectually crushes average worshipers.

But while I deny the existence of a physical entity in our physical universe, God is real in a social sense. This god has real observable effects in my life and in my world. This concept has become real through social use. I have a few friends who fall into this unfalsifiable abstract god definition category. I complain about fundamental religions by saying that “God” expects this or says that. They will correct me by saying, “No, they think that is God. They think that that is what God is like, but they are wrong. I have the true understanding of God.” I think it is ironic that an atheist has a more useful, and concrete concept of God that has more of a basis for reality and objective evidence.

Don't edit this for your broadcast 
so it looks like I'm yelling, 'I killed
 Earl Milford!'-Gob Bluth 

There is nothing illogical about me and other atheists attacking “God” or being angry at “God.” God is real (I better not see that quote out of context somewhere). God affects my life; this social concept passes laws that affect me and attempt to influence my behavior. The American God is a real objective force, and I will write and be angry to defend myself and others from its harm.

Theist and Atheist Grief

All human beings in the world; Atheist, Christian, Muslim, and Jew, experience grief. It is a major part of our human experience. But the social way that grief is viewed and dealt with is unique to culture. Since the beginning of history, religion and mysticism have monopolized on this necessary function, and it still mostly remains in the powerful clutches of religion today. We human beings need explanation; it’s helpful to know that when shit happens there is a good reason for it. But this human desire does not go well with the human brain, which is irrational, and sees patterns and cause when none are there. Our brain is well adapted for survival, but not rationality.

Emotional pain is irrational. It makes sense that irrational ways of dealing with irrational pain would be the most popular. But popularity is not an argument for the best or the most beneficial. Theism and religion’s grief management style is archaic. I find the way that average theists deal with pain in everyday life to be emotionally harmful.

One of my coworkers and good friends recently caused a car accident. My friend was fine, but the other driver had severe medical issues and permanent damage. Although the accident was my friends fault (failure to yield), it could have happened to anyone. He felt horrible, and took a few days off to deal with the shock. I can only imagine the emotional sting he felt as he woke up each morning remembering the awful ordeal. The other guy’s mother was in the police station when my friend was there. She was furious and was yelling at the police officer asking why he had not been arrested.

Of course we can understand the pain this mother felt for the suffering of her son. It would be emotionally difficult. But this leads to my main point; when theists experience grief they are also weighed down with the additional pressure of figuring out why their misery is all part of God’s perfect plan. After heart wrenching grief, theists must justify their pain while protecting the assumption that God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good.

The only justification left is that the injury and agony are really good and they are part of Gods plan, ta da! And this is why I am angry enough to care. Are you fucking kidding me!?!?!?! The accident that my friend caused was good? All of his emotional pain and his heavy financial consequences were good?? My coworker and friend spent two years for God, he donates 10 percent of his tiny income for God, he takes a day off his busy schedule for God, and that’s how God repays him? And what about the victim and his mother? The accident will cause him to loose months away from school and work lying in the hospital with long term disability.  Is permanent damage and months of pain really the best way for an omniscient God to teach petty earth lessons?

Some will say that we only have a small picture, that we cannot understand the lessons God wants for us. It is out of our cognitive reach. Everything is in Gods blueprint. It is good because God made it. In moral arguments the end rarely justifies the means. Why is it acceptable for God? Why is he not called a sadist?

And just to be clear, I am an Atheist. I am not really angry at an old white man with a beard above me. I am angry at religion, and the social concept of God. To me that is all God is, a social idea. And yes, I am damn mad at that.

Atheists experience grief better; it still hurts, and it is still painful, but we do not have the additional burden of justification. When shit happens, we know there is no reason. There is no grand, perfect plan where your misery is required; and no supernatural, all powerful, being is watching you suffer. It just sucks. And that acceptance, I find very peaceful and liberating in the face of grief.

So much of my anger toward Christianity and religion involves offensive ways for justification. Justifications are religions only defense barrier. For centuries Christianity has been fighting the battle against empiricism. Each time a supernatural explanation is replaced by a natural one, religion loses ground. Christianity fights back with justification. No matter what happens in our physical world it is proof for religion’s supernatural claims. This defense works; religion is still around, but the good, average theists are the collateral damage.

Yes I am angry, just like
the Angry Birds

I am angry because a car wreck is evidence for a loving God. I am angry because theists must work their brains in circles to maintain faith when they should just feel comfort from friends and loved ones. I am outraged that horrible suffering must be called good to protect the holiness of Yahweh’s name. And I am pissed that theists feel unnecessary emotional pain because religion says it proves their claim.