Zuma Solves the God Problem

I’m so delighted. After all my philosophising and arguments, my disdain and wondering, my curiosity and reading, I can finally answer the question of god’s existence. Praise His name! Not only does the Christian god exist, ladies and gentleman, but I know an almost certain way to get into the lovely domain of Heaven: Vote ANC.

 

"Invisible men in the sky talk to me! Aren't you glad I'm your president!"

It’s so simple. Here I am doing an ethics course, struggling through the difficult dilemmas raised when people with different beliefs and different values come into conflict over a singular issue. What? That’s politics you say? Don’t be silly. Vote ANC!

Ridding Religion – should we replace it with something?

We get used to the tired retorts from apologists: “Something can’t come from nothing!” “What meaning does life have if you are just going to be wormfood?” “How do you explain consciousness?” … and so on. But a nagging question which I’m putting open for debate is the question of replacement: that is, “What do you replace religion with?”

Like Freud, many of us understand that religion will always remain as long as people fear themselves, the world and the unknown, and perhaps especially death. God answers all the above-mentioned questions and most others. Purpose, meaning, morality, mortality – god (too easily) answers all. We also understand that some people belong to religion, not because they are necessarily (or only) scared but also because it creates opportunities. It is an outlet for their altruism and good-will; it allows them to connect with people on a “spiritual” (or non-materialistic) level; it makes them feel included, part of a group that nourishes their individuality by slowly diminishing it. In other words, it allows a part of a person to flourish that otherwise might not.

I think it is right, but it may be too easy, to say: religion doesn’t need replacement.

I think it’s right in the same sense that we don’t need to replace our belief in Santa Clause or the tooth-fairy. And god, being another imaginary creature, also doesn’t need replacement. However, religion is not simply the belief in god. Many non-religious people believe in (a) god – some are fideists like the great Martin Gardner or Soren Kierkegaard (this may be contested). And, similarly, some religious people do not believe in god: many secular Jews, for instance, are non-believers but might be the first to turn their lights off on Shabbat.

Here are some definitions of religion:

“Religion: Human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.” (Brittanica)

“Religion: (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; (4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to, with ardor and faith.” (Miriam-Webster)

“The religious response is a response to experience and is coloured by the wish to provide a wider context for a fragile, short and turbulent life.” (Philip Rousseau, The Early Christian Centuries)

In all of these, there is barely a mention of a deity. Rituals, observances, the creation of sacred objects, places of contemplation, hymns, and so on – all can be observed by anyone without needing to believe in a deity. Why do it, then, one might ask? To benefit from all the things I mentioned before: to allow oneself the opportunity to experience a side of life that is neglected by other spheres.

I do not need such a system or a feeling of spirituality in my life – or rather, I obtain it from reading, writing, experiencing the beauty of the natural world, science, mathematics and philosophy. In these instances, however, the social element is largely missing. That is why groups like CFI, the Council for Secular Humanism, and so on, are so important to those who are not religious. They can and perhaps should provide the many outlets that religious groups provide: connections on more than material (so a place to discuss the meaning of life, truth, and other philosophical conundrums so rudely appropriated and answered by many religions), outlets for altruism, and so on. What troubles me about such things however is that it undermines the very reason some of us leave religion. We do not want to be part of a groupthink, we wanted out for individuality, for the maintenance of personal autonomy that all theisms view as unneccessary or, worse, harmful.

I am torn between wanting to promote a good life without god – focusing on ethical matters – and maintaining a distance from anything remotely religious. Not only is the god question unhelpful, I think it is mostly unimportant as soon as most people come to grips with it. And I do maintain that calling ourselves sceptics, or atheists, or secular humanists is unhelpful – but I can’t help see the necessity in belonging to something that replaces the need for fulfillment. Because above all, whether religion is nonsense (which it mostly is) or not, I think it’s important to realise that, for most people, it fulfills a need. Perhaps a way to combat it is to undermine its central tenets, whilst displaying a better way to appreciate beauty, promote happiness and cherish the love of others. God undermines these things by making humans become slaves to his desires; removing the agent from being good at all, since a believer thinks he can not be good without god. But people can and are good without god and we must stress this. Not only are they good, they live good lives and are often better people for it. They answer to no more abitrary Guy in the Sky or the whims of his self-proclaimed metatrons on Earth. How convenient that god wants you to donate to this man and all other gods are false!

It’s a fine line and I am uncertain how to straddle it. So, I think the question “What do you replace religion with?” should be answered with one of these.

A. Nothing, since the awe and wonder from religious nonsense could be correctly aligned to the awe and wonder of the natural world.

B. A strict tenet like secular humanism or something like that. I get jittery when I read about someone like Don Cupitt – but that’s probably my unease around anything spiritual.

What do you think is the best way to promote a life without god – a strict adherence to some code, which seems too similar to a religion or to underscore each debunking of religion with a better replacement?

Why Do We Fight Invisible Monsters?

In the midst of all these debates about god, Jesus, ghosts, psychic powers and other things that sound like something from a bad Superman comic, we tend to forget an important point: why we do it. Specifically, this is a question addressed to those who do not believe in god or ghosts (or think that the former is actually a form of the latter). It is launched upon us in exasperation, as those who defend the unfounded claims for bad metaphysics and psychics are grounded down by our inquiry. We know that are our arguments in the “god debate” are better, we understand that naturalism is more helpful to explain the world, that appeals to magic and the supernatural are unhelpful or pointless or harmful. The question then, aside from these points, is why we do it. Why do we fight against a god we don’t believe in, against powers we don’t think exist, against forms of existence we think go against rationality?

I think this question, like most of those offered as a point by the apologists, is not helpful. The question is not why we fight invisible monsters but why others do not. Why are many non-believers in gods and ghosts not in the arena contending these ideas? It is an epistemic and human duty to do what one can for others. The irony is that we are the ones who do not believe in post-mortem reward in a magical cities, with benevolent beings rewarding us for squinting harder than our fellows, for pressing our hands closer together leaving no gap between the skin. We are the ones who are not depending on these supernatural rewards but we try nonetheless to do our best for our species.

But many who should be in our ranks are simply not. The question then needs rephrasing: “why are you not fighting?” Many will argue that they are simply not “intelligent” or “interested”. If that is the case, then it is a dual failure―since this is not just a sexy intellectual thing to do, but one that brings with it many fruits for the mind. One grows with the knowledge that pounds the frontiers of the discussion, emerging wounded but nonetheless intact and the more able for it. To adjust a famous phrase by Plato, it is nothing short than an important way to live the good life; that is fulfilling one’s mind via the acquisition of knowledge by the pure thirst for more.

Those who do not engage in these debates might say that life is more important than fighting battles that are already won.

But they are not. A casual glance across many countries, like the US, Turkey, Britain and South Africa, will show that many people―the majority in schools or universities perhaps―believe Earth to be less than 6,000 years old. Of course intellectually, the merit lies with the science that states the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years: but unless that science is sold, delivered and packaged in a strategic way, its mettle fought by pounding it from different corners (those for, those against), we will continue to have confused and ignorant people on this subject. It needs constant supervision. Our biggest dangers to the collapse of reason lies in two corners: those who are against reason and those who embrace it but do not defend it. This does not mean that if one is rational, one is therefore a committed “atheist” or “sceptic”. One can be a person of reason defending his position on god, but one does this from a reasonable, rational standpoint, not assertion of dogma. Reason is based on bridging the gap between minds to initiate a discussion, to investigate on which side the truth or better argument lies – this is why appeals to dogma and assertion do not work, since one can not falsify them.

One can investigate and defend claims of psychics by investigating it in a scientifically verifiable way. Mere assertion, basing one’s claims on dogma and propping up faith as a virtue are not aspects of reasonable discourse. If we are to progress we need more reasonable discourse and this means anyone, regardless of whether one believes in psychics or gods, can partake of this. Even proponents of Intelligent Design are engaged in this, by (at least attempting) to use science to back-up their claims (the fact is, it’s not purely science but some science and mostly bad metaphysical conclusions, i.e.: a designer).

Thus, my appeal is to anyone; not merely those who believe similarly to myself. There is a great need to increase the volume of attention on the claims of the religious. The fact is, the religious have their established churches and their traditions; they are forced to confront their beliefs all the time, but mostly not in a critical way. Dispassionate non-believers do not have a platform to engage their beliefs―if they did, they would already be one of us.

The religious’ arguments and political influence find sway which affect all our lives: education, curtailing free-speech, safety for one’s life and so on. They have their churches, their inheritance via tradition and magical fallacies. We (mostly) do not: we have no Sunday services, no international TV channels, no world-wide appeal or bookstores that are found in most countries specifically aimed at combating bad metaphysics. Most people, including back-seat sceptics, are simply not self-reflective enough: either relying on what their imam, priest or religious leader says or, if not religious, simply dismissing it as something unimportant. But at least those who do accept the religious leader’s statement have something to say for their views of the world: they can suddenly find themselves picketing at abortion clinics, writing letters against articles that mock their faith and so on. The back-seat sceptic, however, is gazing out the window whilst all the scenery shuffles by. But we are in a losing corner if we do not get those who support us dispassionately to take a stand. Perhaps we also need Sunday services, TV channels and so on―which do actually exist but they are not nearly as ubiquitous as the religious―but it seems that the arguments themselves should be enough.

But they are not. Humans need socialising, engagement, something to stand behind. This means a rethinking of our strategy. We are already getting many―religious and not―into reasonable discussion but there are those who need an extra push. Perhaps now is the time to consider what that will be, how to do it and who should take the first steps.

In the midst of all these debates about god, Jesus, ghosts, psychic powers and other things that sound like something from a bad Superman comic, we tend to forget an important point: why we do it. Specifically, this is a question addressed to those who do not believe in god or ghosts (or think that the former is actually a form of the latter). It is launched upon us in exasperation, as those who defend the unfounded claims for bad metaphysics and psychics are grounded down by our inquiry. We know that are our arguments in the “god debate” are better, we understand that naturalism is more helpful to explain the world, that appeals to magic and the supernatural are unhelpful or pointless or harmful. The question then, aside from these points, is why we do it. Why do we fight against a god we don’t believe in, against powers we don’t think exist, against forms of existence we think go against rationality?
I think this question, like most of those offered as a point by the apologists, is not helpful. The question is not why we fight invisible monsters but why others do not not. Why are many non-believers in gods and ghosts not in the arena contending these ideas? It is an epistemic and human duty to do what one can for one’s fellow human. The irony is that we are the ones who do not believe in post-mortem reward in a magical cities, with benevolent beings rewarding us for squinting harder than our fellows, for pressing our hands closer together leaving no gap between the skin. We are the ones who are not depending on these supernatural rewards but we try nonetheless to do our best for our species.
But many who should be in our ranks are simply not. The question then needs rephrasing: “why are you not fighting?” Many will argue that they are simply not “intelligent” or “interested”. If that is the case, then it is a dual failure―since this is not just a sexy intellectual thing to do, but one that brings with it many fruits for the mind. One grows with the knowledge that pounds the frontiers of the discussion, emerging wounded but nonetheless intact and the more able for it. To adjust a famous phrase by Plato, it is nothing short than an important way to live the good life; that is fulfilling one’s mind via the acquisition of knowledge by the pure thirst for more.
Those who do not engage in these debates might say that life is more important than fighting battles that are already won.
But they are not. A casual glance across many countries, like the US, Turkey, Britain and South Africa, will show that many people―the majority in schools or universities perhaps―believe Earth to be less than 6,000 years old. Of course intellectually, the merit lies with the science that states the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years: but unless that science is sold, delivered and packaged in a strategic way, its mettle fought by pounding it from different corners (those for, those against), we will continue to have confused and ignorant people on this subject. It needs constant supervision. Our biggest dangers to the collapse of reason lies in two corners: those who are against reason and those who embrace it but do not defend it. This does not mean that if one is rational, one is therefore a committed “atheist” or “sceptic”. One can be a person of reason defending his position on god, but one does this from a reasonable, rational standpoint, not assertion of dogma. Reason is based on bridging the gap between minds to initiate a discussion, to investigate on which side the truth or better argument, lies – this is why appeals to dogma and assertion do not work, since one can not falsify them.
One can investigate and defend claims of the psychics by investigating it in a scientifically verifiable way. Mere assertion, basing one’s claims on dogma and propping up faith as a virtue are not aspects of reasonable discourse. If we are to progress we need more reasonable discourse and this means anyone, regardless of whether one believes in psychics or gods, can partake of this. Even proponents of Intelligent Design are engaged in this, by (at least attempting) to use science to back-up their claims (the fact is, it’s not purely science but some science and mostly bad metaphysical conclusions, i.e.: a designer).
Thus, my appeal is to anyone not merely those who believe similarly to myself. There is a great need to increase the volume of attention on the claims of the religious. The fact is, the religious have their established churches and their traditions; they are forced to confront their beliefs all the time, but mostly never in a critical way. Dispassionate non-believers do not have a platform to engage their beliefs―if they did, they would already one of us.
The religious’ arguments and political influence find sway which affect all our lives: education, curtailing free-speech, safety for one’s life and so on. They have their churches, their inheritance via tradition and magical fallacies. We (mostly) do not: we have no Sunday services, no international TV channels, no world-wide appeal or bookstores that are found in most countries specifically aimed at combating bad metaphysics. Most people, including back-seat sceptics, are simply not self-reflective enough: either relying on what their imam, priest or religious says or, if not religious, simply dismissing it as something unimportant. But at least those who do accept the religious leader’s statement have something to say for their views of the world: they can suddenly find themselves picketing at abortion clinics, writing letters against articles that mock their faith and so on. The back-seat sceptic is gazing out the window whilst all the scenery shuffles by. But we are in a losing corner if we do not get those who support us dispassionately to take a stand. Perhaps we also need Sunday services, TV channels and so on―which do actually exist but they are not nearly as ubiquitous as the religious―but it seems that the arguments themselves should be enough.
But they are not. Humans need socialising, engagement, something to stand behind. This means a rethinking of our strategy. We are already getting many―religious and not―into reasonable discussion but there are those who need an extra push. Perhaps now is the time to consider what that will be, how to do it and who should take the first steps.

What I Believe for the 21st Century

Along with Bertrand Russell, it is importance to consider what one believes rather than what one knows. Knowledge, the evanescent sphere that humans touch upon to ascend to higher planes of comprehension, is mostly unimportant: It is the beliefs that we hold. Indeed, modern philosophers like Roger Scruton regard epistemology not as the study of knowledge but the justification for our beliefs. In this short space, I am aim to succinctly outline my current beliefs with the goal of checking up on them in one year. I hope readers do not find this self-indulgent but rather a project of epistemic duty, to which each person should scrutinise for themselves. If there are alternate and better views, many current views should be rescinded or replaced.

I believe…

• …nothing is sacred and the attempt at sanctification brings nothing but dogmatic human assertion onto an otherwise neutral world. This is not to be confused with not thinking certain thing highly important: for example, I do not believe in the “sanctity of human life” but I believe very strongly in fighting for people’s autonomy, freedom and their pursuit of happiness.

• …many current governmental policies, even in “Western” liberal democracies, are premised on knee-jerk emotional responses which cater to the masses. We need a thorough reassessment based on evidence rather than emotion if we wish to help our fellow Man. Thus, our policies on drugs, capital punishment, education and the automatic respect for religions to dictate on important moral issues needs at the most rescinding and at the least thorough consideration.

• …suppression only worsens rather than ameliorates most social problems. Thus, we should legalise drugs (from marijuana to cocaine), prostitution, pornography, abortion,  euthanasia and similarly related constituents of “immorality”. Conservative moralists tend to consider a slippery-slope that as AC Grayling put it works like this: “If you eat two bananas, you are going to want to eat a million.” We can already see the irrationality of such an approach. Firstly, if people want drugs, abortions and euthanasia, they will usually find a way to get it. Secondly, we already have arbitrary instances of various allowances of these prohibitions: we have legalised alcohol and nicotine (both of which are far worse than other drugs, like say marijuana); we don’t blink when we give a pet a good death (the literal meaning of euthanasia) but shudder when the gaze shifts to one of our own. This again goes back to considering something sacred, rather than looking at something humanely – that is, it is more important for someone to have life, even if it is filled with suffering, than to have no life and therefore no suffering. Also, those who chant the mantra “drugs are bad” should remember that for the most part, even alot of so-called hard drugs when taken in minimal circumstances do little to no damage.

• …when entering the public sphere, all ideas are open to criticism, debate, mockery and scorn. If we eliminate the stupid notion of sanctity, we can allow that ideas are man-made and therefore fallible. The point is to weed out the bad and keep the good but that can not be done if certain ideas are beyond criticism. For too long we have lived under the shadow of a respect for people’s faiths but no longer must that be the case. We should care more about people and creating a better world, than hushing our own important criticisms which could better more lives by being spoken rather than placating dormant lives with silence.

• …we should not be afraid to defend our point of views strongly, but more importantly we must be able to utter 2 three-word sentences: “I don’t know” and “I stand corrected”. Sure, we may feel like imbeciles when we vehemently defend a view which turns out to be wrong. We should then apologise and say so, rather than making the situation worse by deluding ourselves into naive dogmatism. Nobody really cares anyway because no one is keeping tabs on how often you were right. Also you will be right by acceding to your opponent or antagonist (even if there are say, your brilliant philosopher girlfriend), because you will be able to correct those who shared your previously held view.

• …religions are a disgusting affront to human sensibilities and are perverse for accruing various properties. It is both tedious and mortifying to constantly read about religious groups opposing abortions, same-sex marriages, prostitution, drugs, freedom of speech and expression, liberty, and so on. In each case, we can probably name a few cases where religious people who deem their actions sanctified (there is that notion of sanctity again!) by a god have killed someone who is part of these movements. Religious people often refuse to face facts and evidence, as is the case with for example evolution and contraceptives, and instead point to arbitrary passages in their arbitrary (sacred) book.  Religions not only reward people for horrifying actions like the slaughter of innocent people, but also rewards people for believing without evidence. It also rewards people for peering into other people’s private lives which, if ignored, would not hinder their own lives at all (how could a happy homosexual couple going about their business make the lives of say a normal family horrid, unless they were Christians and told by their holy book that homosexuality is an affront to god?)

• …the most disgusting affront to our species and the biggest fight we have is the continued emancipation of women and bringing their hands to tightly clutch the banner of liberty. Especially in such places as Africa, where we know that when women are allowed charge over their own bodies, we can end poverty. Poverty will not be solved solely though charity – we know that will not work. Instead, we must seek charity’s root, namely karitas or the love of fellow humans. This means liberating women which reduces poverty by not dealing out already low resources to an inestimable number of offspring, who themselves grow up to continue to breed and create more people to suffer needlessly. Aside from poverty, we need to push back the patriarchy of society to realise that women (who do better than the male counterparts in education) are human. Religions also aid this patriarchy by giving men a divine sanction to use their wives as nothing more than cattle. There are too many instances to name in Islamic countries that they might collectively be called Misogynia. By combating these arrogant and stupid men who think women are lower than themselves, we will be pulling the carpet from under the feet. The biggest wake up call that Muslims states could suffer would be a woman, wearing clothes of her choosing, smiling and enjoying her own mind and body. A respect for the minds and their bodies should be welcomed, not solely for the purpose of the male related urge to have sex, but also for the appreciation of the beauty of both. Personally, women are the better sex and it is often said that if god was a woman, the world wouldn’t be in such a mess – perhaps the only statement of an anthropomorphic god I could agree with.

• …we need a re-evaluation of why we procreate. To the Greeks, everything was an ethical dilemma: even the clothes you wore. To them the ethical life was a life well-lived and living ethically was a life-long challenge. We tend to forget this view, with its importance on self-reflection. Applying this to all spheres would end a lot of social problems but it needs to be consistent. Thus, to be consistent, there has yet to be a good reason laid out for the procreation of  our species. As I write this, I am of the opinion that it is immoral to create new people, since it is by definition impossible to have a child for that child’s sake – because the child does not exist when you conceive him. Parents do not know their children for quite some time, so it is impossible to say that parents have children for that child’s sake. To have a child is simply a selfish act, a biological need (arguably the most prominent and therefore the most overlooked!). Why have kids? It is a bizarre question to most people, but as of yet there has not been a satisfactory answer. To continue the human species is not good enough either, since I do not care for those who do not exist. I care and apply my moral sphere to those who exist. Those who do not exist do not suffer. Also, we must remember that our species will die out eventually and we only prolonging the inevitable. It seems harsh and to some horrifying, but it is rather simple. For this reason, I at this moment will not have children. Instead, I think our efforts in helping people to procreate and the “sad” fact that people are sterile, needs shifting to aid children who are already alive. That is, instead of focusing on children who do not exist, focus on those who do! Perhaps this is what irks me the most – there are so many children who need loving families and I do not doubt that people who want kids simply want a child to love. Therefore, they should not add to our overpopulated word, but simply adopt. Psychological testing has shown time and time again, there is no difference in affection and love between children who parents adopt and children born to biological parents. I believe it a human duty to shift our silly polices on those “unlucky people who are sterile” and who can not create new people; and instead promote the humanity and importance of adopting people who already exist.

• …reading is the gateway to living the good life and engaging in discussion with ideas its path. Epicurus was the embodiment of this, who thought the highest aim in life was sitting beneath a tree discussing philosophy. Whilst we can not reasonably expect such a life today, we can approach it with the same considerations. Reading is a joy and should be shown to young people when their minds are finding fruition and goal. Like education, reading should not be promoted by forcing children to read certain books, but how and why they should read in the first place. People find their hunger grow when reading and the acquisition of “knowledge” becomes a life long goal. There is nothing pretentious in reading Tolstoy and Faulkner’s books, indeed they are beautiful and actually simple writers. They are classics because even the general reader is able to enjoy its beauty, whilst stuffy introverts like myself could dissect it for in-depth literary criticism. There is also much joy to be gained in reading opposing viewpoints, thus reading books for and against evolution, for and against god, for and against postmodernism, and so on. We enjoy debates for their entertainment value and watching one side get overturned by the brilliance of the other; but we also allow people in better positions than ourselves to criticise more eloquently and with better information. It is a joy: try (really try) for example reading a work by Derrida (perhaps a short one) than try Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense or Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom’s Why Truth Matters.

• …by studying philosophy, I hope to bring it further into the public sphere where it belongs. Much is to be gained from the history of ideas and discussion within philosophy. Not least the clarification and use of critical thinking so important to this discipline. Moral philosophers need to be higher placed within our society than say, bishops and rabbis – for the simple reason that moral philosophy is not moralising – i.e.: it is not about setting out a list of “Thou shalt…” and “Thou shalt not…” but the clearing of verbose emotional reactions and alternate paths not previously considered. The first person journalists should contact when an ethical dilemma arises from medical advancement should not be the public or a religious don: it should be a bioethicist. After outlining all the paths and conjectures surrounding the topic, others can contribute more coherently. This should be the job of the philosopher in general, to clear the path for discussion to continue maturely.

• …sex is overrated. In nearly every sense, sex finds itself at the top of the list for both those who consider themselves godless liberals in their “FOR” list, and for the conservative moralisers in their “AGAINST” list. If sex was less the topic of focus, it could be allowed to be the healthy, enjoyable actualisation of affection two (or three or four) people have for each other.

• …I am not intelligent or bright. I reserve such terms for those who deserve it and find it a particularly insulting when an important property finds itself attached to me. As an example, I did terribly in high-school, barely passing. I did even worse in a tertiary institution, only managing firsts in English literature – a degree, nearly anyone could do well in. I am not exceptional in any way, save that I am particularly good-looking.

• …that last sentence was a lie.

I hope that by next year one of these would have changed, either to be replaced with something more informed, or elucidated more clearly. For example, I hope to be able to say that I am working from a tertiary institution. Until then, let us see what changes the world makes upon itself.

The Attempted Aphorisms – On God

On God

A grand miasma of powerful thought that is emptied by the vacuum of the inexplicable. God is used when nothing greater will serve or can be thought of. More often, the latter is the case, since we can now contemplate more compassionate, more beautiful and more beneficent entities than the god of the bible. “God” – A large word, often used by the juvenile mind, when it attempts and thus fails to convey wonder by cohering with the juvenile explanations of the  juvenile years of our species.