Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Three Rants

Entry 1690, on 2014-12-10 at 22:59:47 (Rating 4, News)

I've been working on a few different programming projects recently so I haven't had as much time as I usually do to write blog entries (you might have noticed my decreased output). But there have been many interesting issues in the last few days and I feel I need to comment on them all, so here is a "random rants" entry where I will briefly comment (or perhaps rant) on a series of seemingly unrelated topics. So, let's get started....

Rant the first, subject: politics. The CIA torture report and the moral standards of the US power structure in general.

Well there's no surprises there really, is there? I mean, the report found that the CIA indulge in torture, abuse, and other illegal activities - including on many innocent people - and then lie about it and launch propaganda campaigns supporting their case.

Surely nobody would have been naive enough to think that the CIA, and the US power structure in general, didn't partake in activities which superficially seem to be just as bad as those of their opponents.

The only question really is whether, because the Americans are the "good guys", we should accept these activities as a necessary evil. Maybe sacrificing a few innocent victims is just a price we have to pay. Maybe we have to fight immoral violent terrorist activities with similarly violent reactions. Maybe the only unfortunate thing was that these activities have been uncovered.

I would say that this isn't acceptable because not only are these actions morally unacceptable but practically they don't work either: torture has been shown on many occasions to be a poor way to gain new information from suspects.

Rant the second, subject: religion. How religious belief can lead to extreme, hateful, and anti-social behaviour.

A New Zealand pastor sent an abusive email to a prominent gay author saying he prayed for the author's death: "I pray that you will commit suicide, you filthy fag." The pastor, from Westcity Bible Baptist Church (maybe he got the church's name mixed up with Westboro Baptist!), was replying to a message the author sent to Auckland churches about his new autobiography.

It's debatable to what extent the Bible encourages its followers to despise gays. There is no doubt it partly encourages this attitude because it's clearly there in scripture. Of course, many Christians ignore this by making excuses about why a particular verse has been superseded or has been misinterpreted, and that's good because people having blind belief in an old book is one of my biggest objections to religion.

Sure, there are non-Christians who also hate gays, and there are Christians who don't. But I don't accept the idea that you can't blame the religion for the bad attitude of some of its followers. Of course you can (partly) blame it because it is a major factor in the problem.

The final rant, subject: economics. New Zealand has done well (macro-economically speaking) in the last few years largely because of its success at exporting dairy products, but what will happen now?

There is a case which could be made to say that New Zealand has done better than many other countries since the global financial crisis. Of course the government likes to claim that it was their management which lead to this success, but how true is that claim?

I would say not true at all. A case could be made that a more moderate approach might have lead to even greater success and that global dairy prices - something completely beyond the government's control - have been what saved the country more than anything else.

While dairy prices were high many people were saying how great it was and what a great job New Zealand's dairy monopoly (or virtual monopoly) Fonterra was doing. But some were warning us that it wouldn't last and that greater diversification of the economy would be a wise move and that at a minimum greater value should be added by processing dairy instead of just trying to increase volumes.

Now dairy prices have plummeted and that advice is looking like it might have been pretty good, after all. Now who did that advice come from? That's right, the Greens, who the current government like to criticise as being economically illiterate.

I'm sure that as out economy begins to fail all the people who claimed they were in charge when things were going well will suddenly claim that they can't be held responsible for this failure. Yes, the government and Fonterra are entirely responsible for all the good stuff but can't be blamed for the bad. How convenient for them!

Comment 1 (4222) by richard on 2014-12-11 at 09:38:45:

Just to provide some information regarding the second rant. Firstly, and rather obviously, the behaviour of this individual is absolutely deplorable, and we are quite right to 'pass judgement' (in terms of acknowledging his error). For someone in leadership in a Christian church to behave this stupidly is even more reason to condemn (the behaviour), which is clearly being done loudly in the press.

You said "It's debatable to what extent the Bible encourages it's followers to despise gays". Sorry - This is clearly false. You will find no evidence for that. You will of course find very clear an undisputable evidence that encourages its followers to despise the practice of homosexuality, but as we should all know that is not the same as despising those that choose that lifestyle at all. The Bible is very clear about the approach of love that should be applied to everyone (including those who choose to be in opposition in terms of world-view choices). So it's obvious that this specific behaviour was very clearly the result of rejecting the religions encouragement, not caused by it.

If the Bible were instead to approve of a gay lifestyle, then it's more likely that this person would not have sent that rant. So, in that sense, I do agree with you that 'religion' (or specifically biblical Christianity) is a 'factor in the problem', but just remember this is very selective condemnation for a number of reasons:

1 - The bible also condemns Murder, yet no one seems to complain that much (or blame religion for it) if someone makes a rant asking a child murderer to kill themselves. Yet this rant would be just as much against biblical teaching. Of course I am in no way equating homosexuality with murder as of course they are very different. However, they are both very clearly condemned in the Bible. Clearly we are prepared to accept 'some things' being considered wrong in the Bible, without complaint.

2 - While I hear similar condemnation for the stance of the Russian government against gays, I do not hear anyone crying fowl and blaming their stance on their athiesm (since the Russian Govt publicly rejects religion (but 'tolerates' it only under their strict control).

I find it interesting too, that we (current culture) can all fall into the trap of condemning this individual, (that'd be wrong) rather than simply condemning the bad behaviour (that'd be right), and recognising that he is obviously 'broken' in some way and needs help. Of course the right and wrong expressed here comes from... biblical teaching. Shame we can't apply that rule uniformly. Cheers.

Comment 2 (4224) by OJB on 2014-12-11 at 10:04:29:

Wow, really? Are we both reading the same Bible? I'll get back with specific verses for you later today when I recover from the astonishment at the sheer audacity of your comments! :)

Comment 3 (4226) by OJB on 2014-12-11 at 13:14:37:

Why is his behaviour deplorable? He's just following the teachings of the same old book which you seem to hold in high regard. Leviticus 20:23 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Sounds like death is required in this case.

Well the Bible uses the word "abomination" in relation to homosexuality multiple times. If that isn't an encouragement to think of gays in a negative way I don't know what is. The Bible isn't clear about anything because it's a collection of old myths, stories and opinions made up by many mostly anonymous authors. You can get anything you want from it.

Right, so at least you agree that Christianity is one of the causes of hateful attitudes towards gays. Excellent, at least we are making some progress here.

1. Most of us don't care what the Bible says. Murder is an action which has a clear effect on another person. Homosexuality is a victimless "crime". The two can't be compared in any way.

2. What has the Russian government got to do with atheism? There is no rule in atheism that homosexuality is bad. We don't try to enforce our own sick moral opinions on other people like you do. This is the same tired old red herring that believers drag out every now and then even though it has been discredited years ago.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with Biblical teaching. If we applied the Biblical rules evenly no one would be left alive, at least according to Leviticus. Or do we conveniently ignore that total nonsense now - in which case are we still applying it evenly?

I agree the Bible has a certain amount of good, positive philosophy, but it is also full of hateful, primitive, evil (yes, I said it) nonsense which has no part in a modern society. It's time to move on to something more relevant.

Comment 4 (4227) by richard on 2014-12-11 at 17:53:24:

Appreciate the response. But no you are wrong in your understanding of what Christianity of today teaches. The Leviticus passage was part of a specific set of 'rules' that applied ONLY to the Jews at the time - it most certainly did not even apply to those outside that people group even back then, and it never has since. As non-Jews the punishment requirements of the Levicital Law don't apply to us. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

The Bible explains that christians (which of course only exist post NT) adhere to a 'new law' as provided by the figure the religion stems from - and that new law clearly has at it's foundation the principle of loving even your 'enemies' (real or theological).

However, (as again - I already stated above - sigh), that OT passage does provide a very clear understanding of the attitude of God towards the practice, by using words like abomination yes. Perhaps that attitude might have also been considered redundant if it weren't for the fact that there is clear evidence in the NT that it is universal and stands. Once again though this is NOT that same as encouraging anti-christian behaviour towards gays (or anyone).

1 - You simply repeating what I already acknowledged clearly in my first post (that the two practices are NOT to be compared in any way other than they are both condemned in the Bible) is pointless and doesn't help anything. You missed the point which was about selectively choosing the bible only when it happens to suit your purpose.

2 - Russia was picked simply because they have a strong anti-gay stance currently, and the State declares itself to be a secular state. So when you say 'WE don't try to enforce our 'sick morals'... I assume you mean we atheists? Of course when you consider it is no one else but 'YOU' that are responsible for all the recent law changes enforcing your own favoured morals upon other people, it is clear that your high road claim there is nonsense. It certainly isn't the Christians doing it. LOL

Lets just agree that what this guy did was very wrong (however we come to that conclusion), but remember that Christianity too doesn't somehow 'enforce people to make right decisions', rather it recognises that everyone (Christians included) make dumb mistakes of all kinds, and need help.

Comment 5 (4228) by OJB on 2014-12-11 at 21:43:31:

Ah yes, just the response I expected, and I could say "no, I'm right and you're wrong" but that isn't justified either and that's my point. When you're talking about myths and fantasy there is no right and wrong. The Bible is like a Rorschach Inkblot Test: you see what you want to see because there is no deeper meaning, and that's why it is dangerous.

Yeah, yeah, the NT says the Old Laws still apply too. Again, meaningless myths which you can interpret in any way you like.

Actually it is the same as encouraging hateful behaviour because there is clear evidence that that's exactly what it does in many cases. Surely you cannot deny that?

As I said in the original post, there are good and bad Christians and good and bad non-Christians too in respect to this issue. But there is no doubt that without the Bible's hateful attitude there would be less intolerance in this world. Atheism has no opinion on the subject at all because atheism isn't a belief system so has no moral values.

Christianity does force people to make bad decisions because it says (in the NT only) that unless you do the right thing you go to Hell (at least that's one interpretation of the mythology).

Comment 6 (4229) by richard on 2014-12-12 at 12:12:42:

Well if your point is that we can't say 'I'm right and you are wrong' on the matter, then you have no right to make the claims you do in the first place, and then continue to try to justify them in any subsequent discussion, as if you actually believe you are right and I am wrong.

I am not in that position because I believe the claims I make regarding this particular topic (Does the Bible ask for hate towards gays) are verifiable by evidence of the majority of Biblical scholars. This is a method of truth 'finding' that you seem to rely on quite a bit in other threads, so should be perfectly acceptable to you. Remembering that whether the bible is true or not is irrelevant here. It is still possible for example for people to verify the truth regarding a claim about the actual content and the meaning intended by the author of any document whether that document is a science paper or a fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm.

Less intolerance in the world without the bible eh - you seem to be displaying a high level of intolerance for my view on this matter, so why should I believe what you say is true?

So you are suggesting that Atheists have no negative feelings towards serial killers, child rapists and the like because 'Atheism isn't a belief system and so has no morals values'? That of course is a ridiculous claim, but then one must ask, what justifies those negative feelings, for the atheist?

I am sorry but I don't follow the logic of your last line either. What 'bad decisions' are people forced to make due to the one interpretation of the mythology you refer to?

Look as you say - if you don't think right or wrong actually has any meaning, then there is no point in continuing a pointless debate. I'll leave it to you to have the final word in your blog. I have offered my opinion is all. Cheers.

Comment 7 (4230) by OJB on 2014-12-12 at 13:15:34:

My point was that you can't make absolute truth claims based on myths. You cannot say that one particular interpretation of an old book is right and another wrong when that book is self-contradictory, full of holes, incomplete, and out of date. Well I suppose you can try, but you should admit that other interpretations are possible and probably equally valid.

Yeah the truth of the Bible isn't my main point here, it's that even interpreting the fiction is impossible because it is often poorly written, contradictory, vague, and antiquated.

I don't think debating a subject like this could be equated with the sort of intolerance that religion brings. If Islamic terrorists just debated their views instead of beheading people, if Christians had tried to help witches instead of burning them, things would be OK.

Yes, I am suggesting atheists have no negative views because of atheism. What I am suggesting is that people who just happen to have no belief in religion have moral views because of other aspects of their personalities.

People who might normally have no negative views of gays, etc are encouraged to express negative views by the teaching of their religion, both through the opinions of religious leaders and particular interpretations of religious texts.

Right and wrong do have meaning because they are natural consequences of human social interaction (and dare I suggest shaped by Social Darwinism?). But they are not imposed by a higher power and change with time because society changes with time.

Comment 8 (4231) by OJB on 2014-12-12 at 13:17:51:

Oh, and thanks for your opinion. Even though I disagree and have little respect for a worldview based on antiquated superstition it's still interesting to hear what you have to say. Did you see what I did there? Even when I thank people I insult them! :)

Comment 9 (4234) by richard on 2014-12-15 at 17:49:10:

Saw it yeah :) As promised - I will make no further comment regarding your stated view, which obviously means you simply have no basis for complaint if 'society were to change' in any way AT ALL. Hang on - that also means you have no basis to complain about the CURRENT state of society then either?! So lets just agree that it's clear that under your view (alone) - you have no voice at all. Did you see what I did there. :-)

Comment 10 (4235) by OJB on 2014-12-15 at 20:40:45:

Just because I have made the observation that morality is based on social norms and these change over time doesn't mean I agree with these norms or how they change. There are plenty of things I agree with but some I don't. I reserve the right to criticise anything, even if it is accepted by the majority. If you think about it that is a far better attitude than not being able to criticise a rule because it is claimed to have come form a god.

Yes, I see what you did there. You said a load of crap! :)

Comment 11 (4236) by richard on 2014-12-16 at 10:53:42:

Aaah - Back here again - that's called having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand, you want to preserve the notion that what we believe is truly moral yesterday, might be truly immoral today, (and vice versa), and yet still reserve the right to criticise anything, even if it is accepted by the majority? Really? Remember I agree with you that we should indeed have the right to criticise anything whether the majority opinion or not, but there is only ONE rational basis for that notion - that the 'right and wrong' of those moral constructs isn't actually grounded on the majority belief but on 'something else'. There must be something else that defines the reality or the truth that the mojority must be persuaded of. So exactly what is that 'something else' that gets to trump the majority belief and determine 'truth or reality' under social darwinism wrt morality? That's precisely what social darwinism IS - that the genes that (somehow) seem to promote/accept a certain moral view survive in the population where others don't and are eliminated over time. In your view that's what MAKES them MORAL - so how CAN they be WRONG at all - whether in your genetically determined opinion or not? You know this is nonsense.

BTW - Who said you 'aren't allowed' to criticise a moral rule because it is claimed to come from God? That's exactly what people are doing all the time?! Obviously, it either does or it doesn't come from God - there are only two possible options at play here. Either way, you are equally welcome to criticise all you like.

Comment 12 (4237) by OJB on 2014-12-16 at 22:41:08:

This is all very simple really (despite your rambling monolithic paragraph). You seem to think that there is a requirement for some objective basis for moral statements where I accept that they are fundamentally an opinion. If that doesn't classify them as "moral" according to your definition then fine, call them something else, but don't try to pretend that you have found a hole in my argument.

Many religious people are discouraged from criticising what they think are God's rules, surely you cannot deny that. If you believe God is the source of absolute morality why would you even consider criticising his rules?

Comment 13 (4238) by richard on 2014-12-17 at 10:59:33:

Sorry if you think its rambling - fair enough. What's crucial is whether the point holds, not the eloquence of delivery. I have no problem with you thinking they are an opinion, but am simply pointing out the obvious that one persons opinion has no 'higher' value over another persons opinion, whether the majority opinion or not. Why SHOULD we decide to uphold the majority opinion? What do you believe provides the basis for one persons moral stance being inferior to anothers?

No, I don't deny that statement. I fully agree with you that 'IF you believe God is the source of absolute morality, why would you even consider criticising His rules' - It would seem a risky propsition wouldn't it.

I was simply responding to your charge in Comment 10 that one is 'not able to criticise a rule' on that basis, and clarifying that this isn't actually true. As already mentioned - It obviously and undeniably occurs everywhere all the time. Whether one is ABLE to do so, is a different claim to whether it might be considered wise to do so.

Of course it simply means the real question is - whether God really IS the source. Or put another way - how do we account for the fact that we really DO observe objective moral values in the world but have NO WAY to justify them without an external source. The approach taken by yourself and many others is simply to deny objective standards exists, but it takes next to no time to see them and you living in such a way that accepts the truth that absolute values actually are real - you and me both).

Comment 14 (4239) by OJB on 2014-12-17 at 11:47:01:

Why should we uphold the majority opinion? Because that's the way our society has *evolved* to work. Democracy, despite its faults, is the best system of government we have discovered so far. I'm not saying the majority are always right, that is clearly untrue. What I am saying is that in a political or social context the majority opinion is usually worth following.

Yeah you seem to be debating a rather fine point there. You agree that religion discourages people from questioning the rules, right? That can be a problem - to be honest, I can't even remember the context of where that debate started now!

You seem to be begging the question here. What evidence do you have that there are objective moral values? I think I have challenged you on this before and I don't think your answer was very convincing! I can't think of anything that isn't better explained through a social evolutionary paradigm.

Comment 15 (4240) by richard on 2014-12-18 at 08:51:54:

Hey, I agree that usually the majority opinion is the right one to follow. No problem. Also agree that this is getting a bit off topic and don't really want to labour it, but it is an important point that most people clearly find difficult to grasp, and it was relevant to claims you were making earlier.

Wrt Evidence for objective moral values, well earlier I suggested that people may try to deny it, but very quickly give away their belief in it. When you are guarding your topic here, you deny it, but can I ask you to explain further your previous comment (14).

1 - You deny objective morals exist. So morals then MUST be based on 'something else'. You suggest a social evolutionary paradigm and mention 'democracy' as a good guide. OK, I will grant you that just for the sake of discussion...
2 - But you also said, "I am not saying the majority are always right, that is clearly untrue".

Now I am confused? you say this is CLEARLY untrue? Not just perhaps untrue, but so obvious untrue, that it is self-evident. Of course I agree with that. But are you not admitting that it is in fact completely obvious to you that there is something OTHER THAN democracy and/or a social evolutionary program (which amount to the same thing), that determines true morality?

They also knew that in the Nazi war trials when (quite rightly) rejecting the claim that faithful soldiers following 'external orders', (the result of their social evolutionary environment) shouldn't be culpable for the 'objectively evil' atrocities they committed.

It is clear that only one example of an objective moral value is required to satisfy your requirement. So lets take a recent one. Under your 'paradigm' it is absolutely required that IF the recent killing of 132 innocent school children by Taliban terrorists, could ever be shown to somehow provide humanity with an 'evolutionary advantage', then it would actually be a 'moral' act. Actually this is actually a simple enough principle to consider - being basic survival of the 'fittest'. In the 'real world' though, no one suggests that this could ever be the case.

Obviously your response will be to state that 'clearly' it would NEVER be shown to produce an evolutionary advantage' but THAT is begging the question.

I example that is perhaps easier to follow (and yes I have used before) is rape. It is hard to deny a basic evolutionary goal like spreading your genes as far across the population as possible. Again, one only has to consider that it would seem to provide an evolutionary advantage for the genes involved to then be forced to 'change the rules' and admit rape would be moral under such circumstances.

The FACT that this is completely untenable to all (but psycopaths), is the clearest and undeniable evidence for objective moral values.

Comment 16 (4241) by OJB on 2014-12-18 at 14:07:48:

So we agree that majority opinion is a good guide but is also often untrue. We should distinguish here between truth claims and moral claims however, because I believe moral claims are simply a matter of opinion. Let's remove the ambiguous words right and wrong. Things are inherently true or untrue, but they are not good or bad. That moral claim is just an opinion.

Couldn't quite follow the Nazi war crime thing and I won't invoke Godwin's Law.

I'm not saying that any ideas of good or bad arising from social evolutionary processes have any moral standing, just that we act as if they do. There is no objective morality, just opinions.

You think that rape is an example of a rule or law arising from objective morality? Really? Should I remind you that there are many social species where individuals sacrifice their lives and/or breeding opportunities for the benefit of the community. It's all in the maths.

Just as an aside, can I also suggest that your god seems pretty keen on encouraging rape when it suits him so you're getting even more inconsistent there, I think.

Comment 17 (4242) by richard on 2014-12-19 at 11:10:50:

Yes - precisely. Thanks for your honesty that your belief is that any moral 'law' rape or child murder is not really 'good or bad', rather those labels is simply an opinion, and we merely act as if they do have a 'good or bad' value. I understand that is your opinion, after all, it is logically the only one you can have any claim to under your world view.

With that in mind - Wrt Rape, I am only pointing out that there are simply no grounds for justifying why any 'bad' concept for it could possibly develop in a pure social evolutionary paradigm, because those genes specifying rape as a 'bad concept' in our 'opinions' should have been lost millenia ago, driven out by the only genes surviving - that have no objection at all to it.

Similarly, thank you for feeling you should remind me about altruism in many social species. Glad you did, but can't see why you'd want to. That too has no place in a purely social evolutionary paradigm either because likewise that trait should have long long LONG ago been driven from the gene pool. Those guy simply aren't around to reproduce it. Obvious stuff really.

So it seems that unfortunately for you, once again actual reality (i.e. the inherent and inescapable truth/untruth of the world) does not seem to match your preferred paradigm.

Comment 18 (4243) by OJB on 2014-12-19 at 12:44:59:

Your use of the phrase "actual reality" is interesting since it seems to be contrary to what the vast majority of experts see as being real. Maybe this is some sort of special "actual reality" you Christians have, just like you like to think you have your own version of "faith", "truth", etc!

I would claim that altruistic behaviour in humans and other species is quite well understood and in no way contradicts my worldview. Also you seem to be assuming that every change has to based in genetics. I am saying that social norms, rules, and what is seen by the majority as good behaviour is itself subject to evolutionary pressures. These pressures affect societal attitudes, not genes.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.