I don't usually take time to comment on a YouTube vid, but here we are:
First of all, this is NOT "Peterson vs Hitchens". For one thing, Hitchens is dead. This is a collection of clips from each of them, so as debates go, this doesn't. Neither is responding to the other. Rather, these are quotes on the same general topic, but more about that later.
The general topic is from what does an atheist derive morality? Or, can atheists be moral without God?
From here on, I'm going to assume you watched the video.
Viewing the video and reading the comments, I think it's safe to say that my impressions are quite different from many of the other commenters. When Peterson talks about morality, he's very careful to speak of archetypes and functional equivalents for religion. Hitchens' response to the base question is to state that he is offended by it. Sadly, this is a purely emotional argument, and not a rational one at all. This is deflection, not reason.
Meanwhile, Hitchens does not explain the source of his morality other than to say what it is not. He's quite sure that it's not God, but he's also quite clear that he doesn't know why he doesn't do terrible things. (at 8:36) (As an aside, it's perfectly fine to not know something and say so plainly. More people should do it.)
Peterson explains this psychologically through functional equivalence, and he takes a great deal of care in his choice of words. Regardless of what you choose to call it, there is some underlying acknowledgement that there is something of moral value that transcends purely rational choices based in self interest. Peterson is not hung up on calling it "God", preferring to set aside the cultural baggage of particular labels to focus on the psychological reality that there is something there. Hitchens does not deny that... he simply is adamant that it is not God. Hitchens addresses the psychology only briefly (at 6:00), focusing the entirety of his responses on the cultural baggage.
Both gentlemen refer to Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment is an exploration of the consequences of basing our actions on purely rational grounds... that is, using rationality itself as the only moral code. Hitchens is offended, as he contends that he isn't a rapist or a murderer despite having no religion. I do note in passing that being moral in some areas does not make one moral in general. Hitchens is quoted in A Letter to a Young Contrarian: "Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you," an inversion of the Golden Rule, which enjoins you to treat others as you would wish to be treated, not as you expect to be treated by others. The Golden rule advises you to treat others in the best possible way. Hitchens' Rule advises you to take the least beneficial action toward others consistent with what you expect to receive from them. Also among his arguments, Hitchens refers to his oft-cited "challenge" ("Name me an ethical action taken or a moral statement made by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer" (at 8:49)). This is far from unanswerable, and I have dealt with it at length elsewhere.
Meanwhile, to Peterson, those who don't act as Raskolnikov does in the novel are not truly atheists, as -- setting aside the question of what to call it -- they have some deep underlying functional equivalent for religion that provides moral grounding. This underlying function is not merely non-rational, but inexplicable using pure reason. Unfortunately, Peterson spoils it a bit by intimating there's possibly some cowardice in play that prevents atheists from using the word "religion" in reference to this inexplicable phenomenon.
Now, if you're paying close attention here, each is not addressing the other's argument. That's to be expected, as this is a collection of clips. Quite frankly, I believe that if they were in the same room, then Hitchens' offense would be waved aside by Peterson, and that Hitchens would actually not disagree with Peterson's argument re: an underlying functional equivalent. Hitchens himself states that he doesn't know why he acts in accordance with morality, even when acting immorally would be in his self interest, even when he wouldn't get caught. This is evident when he argues that he acts without fear of retribution and without expectation of reward.
Here's where Hitchens spoils it a bit, though, by mis-characterizing Judeo-Christian belief on that matter, implying that fear and reward are the guiding forces there. In fact, most Christians are adamant that works buy you nothing. To a devout Christian, there's nothing you can do to earn your way into Heaven. Rather, that is a gift of grace: works are the sign of belief, not a cover charge for entry. Devout Jews act out of a deep-seated sense of obligation. To do a mitzvah because you are obliged to do it is more noble to Jewish sensibilities than to do the exact same deed because you want to.
By the way, when Hitchens speaks of his Jewish ancestors making it all the way to Sinai without knowing that rape and pillage are wrong, this is a mis-statement of morality as depicted in near-Eastern religious tradition, which -- fairly presented -- depicts Noahide laws existent prior to the covenant on Sinai. These are simply the things that we would expect of all decent human beings, regardless of religion. Among them are the establishment of courts of justice. Since those among the audience who are religious know their own beliefs and can recognize the straw man, the statement undermines his case.
Generally, I don't think that Hitchens makes a particularly strong case unless you walk into the argument predisposed to believing that. That could be an artifact of the editor having picked those particular quotes rather than more cogent arguments Hitchens could have -- and probably would have -- made. I'm fairly certain that were these gentlemen actually talking in the same room at the same time, Hitchens' "offense" wouldn't last a minute. With that in mind, I'm a bit disappointed with the editing. I'm sure that Hitchens had much better arguments that the editor could have used. I'm dismayed that the editor didn't ferret them out and use them instead. Hitchens was no idiot. He would never have repeated invitations to speak if his core rebuttal was to whine about how offended he was. Nevertheless, that's the impression that the editor gives us here. This is a shame, as finding something offensive is the weakest possible argument in any rational discourse. Being offended by someone else's logic doesn't invalidate the logic. It's a non-response. It's also a non-response that I don't think Hitchens himself would use in direct discourse with Peterson. As Peterson is arguing as a psychologist rather than a Christian, Hitchens would find that Peterson's arguments are very different from those of the Christians that Hitchens is used to debating, and would necessarily respond with better, more rational arguments. It would be a very different conversation than what we see here.
I also suspect that those YouTube commenters who think Peterson is waffling just aren't listening very closely to what he's actually saying. They think he's talking about "God" when in fact he's talking about something (for which, to him, the label is not important) that is not consistent with pure rationally derived self-interest. Giving it another label doesn't make it go away. Being offended by someone else's label doesn't make the thing being labeled go away, either. In short, this video presents an "debate" over language that mostly ignores the key concept.
Imagine that you're a sculptor. You're working in marble, and it's your desire to create a beautiful statue made of marble. To that end, you have a large, unformed block of the stone in front of you.
Some of the stone is fractured. There are faults. But much of it is solid and sound. As an experienced sculptor, you recognize the flaws, plan your work, and begin on a project that is as much about destruction as it is creation.
Consider this: with each tap of your hammer, with each mark of your chisel you destroy, you remove, you damage some of the stone. It lies there on the floor to be swept away. As the project continues, you soon have excised more stone than remain in the sculpture itself. Even stone that is good and sound may not be part of the final design, and is chipped away.
At the end of this process you have the beautiful statue that you envisioned. But the entirety of the process aside from its conception... every bit of it... consisted of a systematic and planned destruction of portions of the stone before you.
Clearly, in this case, destruction isn't bad. It's a necessary part of achieving something very good.
Keep in mind, too, that at any time you could have raised your hammer in anger and frustration. You could have smashed the entire work with a sledgehammer. You could even have refrained from touching any of the sound stone, chipping away only the flawed portions. You could have sculpted it in a different way. No one denies your power to do it.
Yet, despite your power to act in that way, if you did you would not in the end have the beautiful statue of which you conceived. The fact that you did not destroy the statue does not in any way reflect on your power to do so.
--==//oOo\\==--
People often ask why bad things happen to good people, and why an omnipotent God allows evil to exist. God doesn't allow it... as Isaiah said, "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, that does all these things" (Isaiah 45,6-7).
The statue of David by Michaelangelo.
Follow this link to Britannica
to read how this exquisite work of art was extracted
from stone that expert opinion has judged 'mediocre quality'
The chances are, if you're a human being, when you say the word spirituality you mean something completely different from what I mean when I say it... even after we've consulted a dictionary.
Though I consider myself to be religious, when I use words like spirit or soulorconsciousness in a metaphysical sense (collectively, mind-body duality), I do so with full acknowledgement that I have no idea whatsoever what those words reallymean. And the more I talk with people who think they know what these words mean, the more I'm convinced that they have no idea either. And yet they're all over the place.
When the words are used, they typically describe some incorporeal, non-physical beingness. We suppose that this beingness exists apart from the body, and is yet tied to the body. And though we have perfectly good meat-computers in our heads, it is this beingness that we imagine controls our actions and thoughts, through some undefined manipulation of these meat-computers (brains).
None of this explains what a soul is, or how it interacts with a brain, or why we suppose it to be indestructible. It doesn't explain why we imagine it to be something we can give away -- or that some devil can collect -- while continuing to go about our lives. And given the fact that our thoughts and memories can be affected by chemicals, or physical trauma, or surgery, or genetics or disease; it doesn't explain why we suppose it to live on after our deaths to face punishment or reward or recycling or merging with some grander consciousness, depending on your religion. It doesn't explain why the concept of mind-body duality is accepted without question by people who believe themselves to be atheists, yet write fiction involving body-swapping and possession and mind-reading at a distance and astral projection and transcendental evolution. I don't think even the Pope could adequately explain it without saying it's a matter of faith. And honestly, I think that's a pretty good answer.
It's generally agreed that this is not a scientific concept. That doesn't mean it can't be true; but it means that we've agreed (most of us, anyway) that there's no way of testing it scientifically. And for the following discussion, I'm going to put my scientist hat on.
Basically, if you took all of the verified scientific evidence of the existence of mind-body duality, wrote it all out on 20# paper stock, and put it on a scale, it would weigh nothing whatsoever. Empty scale. On the other hand, you could fill a library with the "factual" statements of conviction that have been written on the subject. (Don't get excited. The same thing's true of much of theoretical physics.)
Here's an example: Supernatural Magazine. I've linked you to an article on consciousness and parallel universes. Notice all of the declarative statements. Nary a doubt. Notice all the scientific jargon, like "vibrational rates", which mean absolutely nothing outside of this word salad. Notice phrases like "Science says," when Science does no such thing. Some scientists may say something to the effect, but you have to be very careful to understand the context of any theoretical discussion among scientists. That is, the scientists all know and understand the discussion to be theoretical. In other words, every word of every discussion is understood to be descriptive of models built from hypotheses and suppositions accepted for the purpose of discourse to then ask the question, "What if? If all of these things we're talking about were true, then what would we expect to see?" And then they go off to experiment and measure and observe and tell you whether they see those expected things. And if they don't, then they dream up something new. And though for the sake of their human egos and funding and pride, most theoreticians like us to assign a little more gravitas to their gravity; at it's core, that's what science is. The folks at Supernatural Magazine don't seem to understand that. Instead, they take these models as solid fact and present them as such. The end result is a meaningless, garbled mess. They confuse parallel universes with multiple dimensions and get basically everything wrong.
Sometimes scientists themselves get tied up in knots in a similar fashion over this subject as well as similar nebulous terms such as free will. I don't think it's a spoiler to reveal that we really have no idea what free will is, or how we would recognize it if we saw it. I think it's fair to say that as far as we know, the Universe is deterministic, even if it is unpredictable at the scales of the very small. (I think probability more accurately describes the state of our knowledge than the state of the event. Thought experiment: flip a coin and call it in the air. What is the chance that it lands heads-up? 50%? Now flip the same coin, catch it in the air and cover it. What is the chance now? Now flip it, catch it, cover it, and peek. Then ask someone else to tell you the odds. Do the two of you agree?) How is it possible to have free will in a deterministic universe? For that we need to know what free will is, and that's tied in with consciousness, and we don't even know what consciousness is. That's just being honest.
I think it's highly unlikely that we could ever actually solve problems like this about the physical universe. We cannot prove the self-consistency of a system from within the system itself (Gödel's incompleteness theorems). And sadly, we are intrinsically part of the Universe we're trying to explain, and we're using the brains that we're trying to explain. So I think that "we don't know" is a very rational response to our questions about the most fundamental nature of reality and of ourselves.
--==//oOo\\==--
That doesn't stop people from trying, of course. I recently came across a 2014 article in ScienceDirect by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose entitled, "Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory". "Orch OR" stands for "orchestrated objective reduction". I'm not going into a detailed summary, as the article is exactly that, and you can read the article and commentary yourself. And as you do, note the inherent differences between this article and the previously-linked one from Supernatural Magazine. In ScienceDirect, phrases like "we may speculate" and "we believe" abound. In criticizing the article, I make no comment on the discussion of neurochemistry. I'll take their word for it as I don't study that. But I do have some issues with their logic.
Of course, Orch OR invokes quantum events as an outside causal agency for the action of free will. Hameroff and Penrose conclude that "consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe." The problem I have with it is that with all of the mental gymnastics employed in the article, there's no way that the premises or the arguments definitively support the conclusion.
Let's strip it down. At the start of the article they declare: "what consciousness actually is remains unknown". Well, that much is true. And in their conclusion they state, "Such OR events would have to be ‘orchestrated’ in an appropriate way (Orch OR), for genuine consciousness to arise." See the problem? They don't know what "genuine consciousness" is. They therefore have no basis for stating its required conditions.
Yes, they do lay out some conditions that they may believe are descriptive of consciousness. But these are self-admittedly subjective. That we feel as if we have free will does not mean that free will is a property of "genuine consciousness". Should we encounter a provably deterministic consciousness that reports that it feels as if it has free will, it would meet the conditions at least as well as we do. Typically, some form of randomization is usually invoked in discussions of free will, but it doesn't follow that a randomized system is non-deterministic; merely that the trigger for the action is unknown. And once triggered, the system itself is still deterministic. "Free will" of itself does not even imply randomization... quite the opposite. "Free will" implies deliberation and volition, not random action. And if a wave-function requires consciousness to collapse, and consciousness has free will, why can't Schrödinger simply will his cat to live?
Such difficulties are why I now like to avoid the term "free will" entirely, and instead focus on "self-determination". It doesn't matter whether I have free will or not. As your brain is equipped no differently, you have no inherent authority regarding my decisions. It works for me on every level, including the religious, the philosophical and the political.
To be fair, Penrose is quite explicit that when he's talking about non-computability, he doesn't mean randomness. But I'm not sure he makes his case. Randomness is pretty much how the transition from quantum to classical physics expresses itself in our present understanding. Penrose proposes that some new model of physics is required. Unfortunately, this would appear to require processes that take place below the threshold of possible experimentation.
But this does nothing to define or explain what is meant (if anything) by employed terms such as proto-consciousness. Really... what the hell is that? I intuitively think that OR -- objective reduction -- as a "real thing" must exist in some form, otherwise we have a very hard time explaining the reality of events, the effects of which we observe long after their occurrence in the far reaches of the Universe. I think it's pretty nonsensical to seriously posit whether things exist that we haven't experienced. But is it necessary to invoke consciousness to explain the reduction of those events? Is it not enough to allow that interactions count as observations? Is it not enough to allow that quantum events, although they may provide random input, thus influencing our computation, do not necessarily imply a consciousness separate from ourselves? Is it necessary to discard the notion that our brains are sufficiently complex to perceive themselves as "conscious" without first disproving it?
Now, all of that is said with my scientist hat on. When I take that hat off, there's something extremely familiar about the notion of some pervasive objective consciousness collapsing the wave-functions of the Universe, resulting in a deterministic world which we inhabit while exhibiting free will made possible by partaking of the essence of that proto-consciousness. It certainly seems to be a restatement of things I accept on faith, dressed up with a bit of math. It's called Religion. And yet, Penrose describes himself as an atheist. Maybe that's a wave-function he should concentrate on reducing.
--==//oOo\\==--
UPDATE: One other thing that I'd like to address is that the article mentions the following:
Measurable brain activity correlated with a conscious perception of a stimulus generally occurs several hundred milliseconds after that stimulus. Yet in activities ranging from rapid conversation to competitive athletics, we respond to a stimulus (seemingly consciously) before the above activity that would be correlated with that stimulus occurs in the brain. This is interpreted in conventional neuroscience and philosophy [1–3] to imply that in such cases we respond non-consciously, on auto-pilot, and subsequently have only an illusion of conscious response. The mainstream view is that consciousness is epiphenomenal illusion, occurring after-the-fact as a false impression of conscious control of behavior. Accordingly, we are merely ‘helpless spectators’
Hameroff and Penrose offer quantum processes in the brain as "loopholes" for such implementations. I wonder if that's even necessary, as I have doubts as to whether the mainstream view is even correct.
Here's an analogy from my own field of computer programming. Granted, programs are automata (even as we might be) so I'm going to anthropomorphize a bit and use a simple example, but it's for the purpose of illustration.
Let's take a program like Chess. There are basically three things going on here: You have a user interface (UI). That's what communicates with the outside world in some meaningful way, by taking input from the keyboard and mouse and drawing graphics. The UI may have other functions, such as being 'aware' of the rules of the game and checking the legality of the player's moves. It may remember previous positions. Then there's the chess engine, which has very limited UI, mainly intended to communicate with the UI. And then there's a library of set responses to known chess positions. Together, they comprise the chess program.
Now, you might think of the library as 'instinct' or 'reflex' or 'muscle memory'. It's not very interesting here, in that no 'thought' is involved in the responses. So long as it receives input that's 'in the book', it responds automatically.
Positions that are not 'in the book' are evaluated by the chess engine. Once that's done it distills all of that analysis into a single response (the move) and sends it back to the UI.
The library is much faster than the computations performed by the engine. And to improve performance, we need not wait for the library to report failure before working on the problem. The engine 'thinks' about the problem even as the library is being searched. But the library responds first, even though we know we 'consciously' set to work evaluating the position. And if the library responds negatively, then we've constructively used the time. In any event, it takes some finite amount of time to integrate the results and report them to the UI.
Keep in mind that the UI is fairly superficial. And if we look at what's going on in the internals of the machine, the program has generated a response and taken action to update its internal 'board' before the UI is 'aware' of the decision and can communicate it to the user. Other programs do similar things with procedural calls to back-end processes that perform actions before they can be reported. For instance, I've designed a system for mortgage insurance that submits applications to multiple decision engines and returns "first response" underwriting decisions.
If our understanding of the 'program' were limited to the superficial layers that communicate with us, then we might conclude that the program were acting 'unconsciously'.
I think the same is likely to be true of biological consciousness. It's not that any part of this happens 'unconsciously'. Rather, it's that consciousness is more complicated than is thought of in the mainstream view. I think it doesn't all happen at once, monolithically, and it's not a step-by-step linear process as it might be in a very simple program. Rather, I surmise that we frame a choice and set the various parts of our mind to work on it, integrating the results and reporting them. To say that something is 'unconscious' when it is part of the conscious process is to mis-label it. And this goes back to the earlier assertion that we don't really know what consciousness is... so we run the risk of excluding necessary functions from that definition and erroneously saying that it's not conscious at all... we are merely ‘helpless spectators’ experiencing an 'illusion'. We look at functional design and conclude that it's a paradox. Such an interpretation is not necessarily warranted.
Many people believe that the opposite of Love is Hate. I don't think it is. The true opposite of Love is nothing at all. If you have ever felt the empty, bland not-caringness of ceasing to love someone without hating them, you have some idea of the truth of this. Where there is both Love and Hate, when the Love is gone, then Hate is exposed, naked. For this reason, people believe them to be opposites.
Hate stems from the perception of being hurt or wronged. Hate, properly applied, has a positive purpose. Consider this passage from C.S. Lewis' Perelandra, in which Professor Ransom is wrestling with the Un-Man:
What was before him appeared no longer a creature of corrupted will. It was corruption itself to which will was attached only as an instrument. Ages ago it had been a Person: but the ruins of personality now survived in it only as weapons at the disposal of a furious self-exiled negation. It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for.
Why would an almighty God allow such a thing as hatred...? Because it has exquisite, necessary utility. Love is the condition by which we care for others more than we care for ourselves. Unalloyed Love leads us to allow evil without opposition. We become the unwitting tools of evil. We become enablers. Hate, properly applied, motivates us to combat evil. In the presence of Love, Hate gives us the strength to act where we might otherwise consider only our own survival. It keeps us from being cowards.
Hate becomes a problem in the absence of Love.
Without Love... putting others first... we make ourselves the center of everything. Every matter of ethics and morality becomes relative and subjective. We focus only on the offense that we take, without considering whether offense was given. Thus, we are offended by everything and we hate freely. And because admitting to our hatred would damage our self-image, we cannot bring ourselves to do that. Instead, we justify our selfishness using the language of emotions we do not truly feel. Not necessarily toward everyone... but certainly toward those who don't bolster our self-image... those who are not useful to us.
Look around. Look inside. Judge for yourself.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.
Years ago (around 1992), before my twins were born, my sister called me at her wits' end. Her son was failing high school. He'd been kept back a grade, and she couldn't get him back on track. Not only was his classwork and homework lacking, he suffered from headaches which caused him to exceed his allowed sick days. He was also just generally truant.
"Send him to me," I said. So he came to live with me in the little city of Union, where there is one high school that serves the entire county. The school is located outside of town, miles from the nearest convenience store. I enrolled him there.
Shortly after the school year started, he called me from the school office. "Uncle Dave," he said, "I have a really bad headache. Can you come sign me out?"
"Go to the nurse and get some aspirin," I said.
"They won't hand out any medications," he replied (and that was true... I spoke with the nurse). He pleaded, "Can you please come sign me out?"
He had already been with me for some time, and I'm not an unobservant fellow. I noted with some interest that he didn't seem to suffer from these chronic headaches I'd been told about... not until he started school. "Meet me at the front of the school," I replied.
So I drove to the school, and there on the curb outside of the office stood my nephew, expectantly awaiting his ride home. He was still standing there after I rolled down the car window as I drove past slowly and wordlessly tossed a bottle of aspirin in his general direction.
He never asked for another ride home, and he completed that year and was promoted to the next grade.
TWO:
I have three sons. I have never ridden herd over any of them regarding homework. It was their assignment, their responsibility, their job; just as at their age my homework was my job. I have always been available to help when asked, but otherwise I'm completely hands-off.
That doesn't mean I don't pay attention. One of my children failed... more than once. For several years he attended summer school so that he wasn't held back a grade. It's not that he couldn't do the work... he made straight As in summer school. It's that he didn't want to do the assignments, and it cost him.
One day he came to me and said, "Dad, I don't want to be stupid anymore."
"Well then you're in luck. You were never stupid to begin with," I replied.
He said, "You know what I mean. I want to get out of the slower classes. I might have messed this up. I need help."
"OK," I said, "Here's what you need to do. If you need help understanding something, ask me. But don't wait until it's a problem. Just ask me as soon as you realize you don't understand it. But start by making sure you do your homework and turn your assignments in on time."
He did his homework and turned his assignments in on time. He never asked me for help in high school. He never needed it. Today he's in his second year at the University of South Carolina, and is a model student. Occasionally he asks me to proofread a paper.
THE MORAL:
I didn't respond to either of these young men the way they wanted or expected. My nephew wanted to go home and be pampered. I made him stay and slog out the remainder of that day and every other day he claimed a headache. He eventually stopped claiming them and just passed his grade. He could have done that at any time. If I had been overly attentive to his discomfort, he would have failed again. Discomfort is a part of life. We all deal with it. That doesn't change our obligations. My nephew needed to know that he had no option but attendance. So I gave him no option. My son needed to know that failure to perform equals failure to achieve. So I let him fail. They both needed to rely on themselves.
And yes, when it comes to parenting I can be an ass. I love my kids more than anything else in the world, but I'm not here to give them what they want. I'm here to teach them what they need so that they can get what they want for themselves. I was still there, watching. ready to make sure that the consequences weren't too dire. But if my nephew had needed a sick day or two, or my son wound up attending community college, it wouldn't have been the end of the world for either of them.
--==//oOo\\==--
God is a bit like that. I imagine I learned the technique from Him. When you pray to God give you something, you rarely get exactly what you ask for. If you pray to God for a hole in the ground, chances are He'll point you to a shovel. And he expects you to start digging. And you'd better dig, because next time He might answer with a spoon. When God provides, it may not be everything you ask for; it may not be your ideal; but it will get you by. You'll have to pitch in.
Sometimes when you pray He just lets you fail. When that happens, as near as I can tell, you pretty much needed to fail. And, as near as I can tell, that happens when you make the mistake of thinking that God is some kind of genie who's there to grant your wishes.
NEWS FLASH:
I've said this before, directing the message to Christians who inappropriately send the message that He is some kind of magical go-fer who will attend to their every whim. In that piece I said,
"If you tell someone that God will surely rescue them from whatever their affliction is if they only pray hard enough or sincerely enough, or long enough, you're lying to them. And you are cruelly making it their fault if their problems don't disappear. Prayer is for praise and supplication, but sometimes the answer is 'no'."
If you're a Christian, don't make outrageous claims so that people will will not overlook their gifts and end up disillusioned. And more than that, stop others when they do it. And if you are relying on such claims, understand that God's prayers are most often answered by giving you the means to provide for yourself. If you are depending on more than that, then you're treating God as a genie. Stop, look at what you have to work with, and then work with it.
There are two other things. First, prayers of thanks are better than prayers of supplication. They encourage you to look at your gifts rather than overlook them. Second, almost always, the best way to help yourself is to help someone else. It sounds crazy, but it's true.
Here's how a pastor approaches the same subject. [link] He uses my graphic. ;)
Michael Schermer wrote an article for Scientific American called "Smart People Believe Weird Things". In it he reveals a study published Skeptic (Vol. 9, No. 3) that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. Note the title well. Belief in certain things does not make one stupid. And just as education by itself is no paranormal prophylactic, lack of belief in those same things does not make one smart, or educated.
So if you denounce as idiots those who possess "superstitious" beliefs simply because they believe, know that there is no scientific basis for that denunciation; and while you're crowing about your enlightenment, you may miss out on your own ignorance. I encountered a bit of fundamentally flawed thinking that needs to be shared for the benefit of those sheltered individuals who might believe that atheism automatically imbues one with intelligence, education, and/or rational thought.
It began with this particular story was shared on Facebook from RawStory.com. The headline:
In general, as a former Journalism geek, I have limited respect for headline writers. Often a well-written, well-balanced article is subverted by a cherry-picked quote. In this case, I can't blame the headline editor any more than the writer, who cherry-picked this sermon.
It was shared on Facebook with this comment by "the Atheist":
"Another horrible, dangerous line of thinking that can only exist because of Religion. Praise be!"
And what followed was an already-in-progress long, semantic argument over the "misogyny" exhibited by this man and the "problem" (undefined by all participants) of his statement. What was being argued was whether this "misogyny" was because of or separate from his religion. While I'd like to think that this fundamental mis-reading of the material was purely a result of the poor writing, that turned out not to be the case. But before we look into that, let's pay attention to what this pastor is actually saying.
The Actual Message
This particular sermon is targeted at men and women alike. Abortion is one of the examples he uses, but he's using 1 Corinthians 6 to make a far broader claim. In the sermon he argues against gluttony, Internet pornography, and body modification as well. It is the headline that is focused on women, but this one example does not encompass the whole of the broader point that's being made. To say that it's "misogynistic", one must first allow that it's "misandric" in equal measure. That, of course, means it's neither, and simply treats people equally.
On theological grounds, I'd argue that Crawford's language is imprecise... that a more proper reading is that we are granted all of the rights due to a caretaker, and have a corresponding responsibility to be good stewards. "All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any."-- 1 Cor 6:12
However, to be clear, this sermon is not about abortion alone, nor is it about women. If it is "about" anything, it's a sermon against hypocrisy... what Jeff Crawford calls "theological dualism". It is about the idea that if you choose a religion, then you should choose also to live by its precepts. Crawford says quite a lot about what you choose to do ("you" being his parishioners), and not one word about forcing others to conform to your choices. This is made rather clear starting at around 1:56. This is a sermon specifically directed at Christians by a Christian pastor.
Whether you agree with his theology or not, if you wish to debate what Crawford says, intellectual integrity demands that you pay attention to the context. It's not merely easy to isolate a statement and debate what you wish it meant instead: it's lazy.
The Perceived Message
Pro-Life advocacy is the undefined "problem" referenced by the Atheist. Although he never says it outright, later statements made it clear that this is so, and other correspondents in the thread don't share his timidity.
I think it highly revealing that in the discussion, the only conclusion that anyone had drawn is that the motivation for such a stance is misogyny... hatred of women. No one considered that opposition to abortion may be motivated by a sincere desire to protect the life of a child. Instead, it was simply assumed to be hatred. At that point everyone there had stopped thinking, and never once considered that there may be a deeper motivation. It was as if they were mice who had found cheese, and thus never bothered to look for an exit to their maze. That's incredibly disappointing, as misogyny and religion need play no part in an anti-abortionist position. This is well-argued in this piece by Hemant Mehta:
There are compelling Pro-Life arguments without religion. The fact that someone ascribes to religious reasons as well does nothing whatsoever to negate any of the secular arguments which they may also have. And the mere fact that someone offers a Pro-Life argument does not make them misogynistic. So if you want to debate that topic, you have a two-fold task. Flippant dismissal of a "religious fanatic" isn't going to cut it. You have to address all the other reasons, too.
And that could have formed the basis of a rather robust intellectual discussion. Sadly, it never got that far.
Atheism as Dogma...
One voice of reason pointed out to the Atheist that religion is neither the cause nor a guard against sociopathy. It simply gives focus to those problems an irrational person already possesses. Anything that a fundamentalist will do in the name of God may be done (and historically has been) by an atheist in the name of the State.
I agree entirely. Note carefully that his argument is not an appeal to hypocrisy. Rather, it's argued as an indication that sociopathy exists independently of religious conviction. When talking about the State, there is a direct equivalence with God. The State or the Collective is not an entity... it is an incorporeal abstraction that is omnipresent and has the power to dictate your thought and actions. When you give over to that, the result is identical in every respect to religious dogma.
There are many examples of atheistic practices that mirror those of religion. One that is particularly appropriate is that Communist China long had a "one child only" law that basically mirrors the assertion that a woman has no right to her body, substituting "the State" for "God".
Not only did China's "one child only" law mandate abortions, it was enforced by the state with armed arrests, forced procedures, and continued harassment. When listing the transgressions of Christians, you would be hard-pressed to find any as heinous as having a team of armed policemen break through a door, grab a woman, subdue her husband, drag her to a clinic and forcibly remove her unborn child against her will. Clearly, such "dangerous lines of thought" do not require religion.
NOTE: I know it's tempting to the atheist reader to denounce this as a "tu quoque fallacy". However, such a reader is advised to look at the application of the argument. Tu quoque ("you too") is fallacious when used as a means to deflect blame, as it's merely a way of saying, "this is right because you do it, too". That's not what I'm doing. When your argument is that you never do a thing, then it is a valid and devastating refutation to demonstrate that you do. Remember, the plainly stated argument is, "Another horrible, dangerous line of thinking that can only exist because of Religion." Examples to the contrary are not tu quoque: they are silver bullets.
This is an inversion of the "Hitchens Challenge", which we'll re-visit below. For now, know that there is no atrocity that can be done in the name of religion that cannot be done in the name of secularism.
Yet, despite such recent documented evidence of State ownership of individual bodies, the Atheist repeated the blatant falsehood that this very condition "can only exist because of religion". This is a case of hearing the evidence, making no attempt to refute it, but rather simply pretending it doesn't exist to make the same refuted claim over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Here's an actual example from the thread:
This has nothing to do with secular ideas! This is a guy saying you have no right over your own body because of GOD. GOD, GOD, GOD. GOD. How is this unclear? You cannot use the argument of GOD without RELIGION. There is nothing secular about this. It is about his preaching of GOD
As you can see, the response to a clear case of such a line of thinking existing without religion is to re-define the argument so as to claim that it's not the same line of thinking unless it includes god. If this looks a bit like frantic foot-stamping, that's because it is. This isn't a compilation: it was one response.
You should know that this was a response to a non-Christian. The last I asked, he was a Satanist. And this Satanist reasonably argued that religion is not the source of all evil, that it doesn't prevent people from performing altruistic acts; and that although there are some religious sociopaths, it doesn't follow that simply being religious makes one a sociopath.... and the Atheist would have none of it.
I pointed out that in painting with a broad brush, and claiming that there is nothing good in religion, he equally denounces Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, Wiccans, Zoroastrians, and all manner of other spiritual folk beyond those he obviously targets (Those being "Christians", although he went to extraordinary lengths to avoid typing the word even once). I asked if that was his intent, and it was:
As for "painting a broad brush", that is always weak. First of all, it's very easy to tell exactly which specific religion this is about in context, but, yes, broadly speaking there is nothing good about any religion. However, that's a distraction from the point of the original post, which was "Hey, look at this really stupid and potentially unsafe thought process given to us by religious 'thought'." [emphasis added]
Actually, the original post was a fallacy brought on by a failure to move beyond a headline. And here it became clear that he really wasn't looking for a discussion. Rather, he was expectant of the "Ha, ha, silly Christians," response that one might get in an echo chamber. The fact that a Satanist and a Christian might agree that his reasoning is faulty wasn't anticipated in the slightest.
More importantly, If you're looking for something REALLY stupid and potentially unsafe, consider this:
"Everybody who doesn't think like me is dangerous" is the most dangerous line of thought in all of human history.
...aaaaand Bigotry
Given the news that "there is nothing good about any religion", I had to ask the obvious question: "So what happens when a religion espouses the things that are secularly proclaimed to be good? They must actually be bad if you're correct. This claim leads to a ridiculous result, and is just sloppy thinking."
Um, the fact that the only good things religion can offer ARE offered by rational secular crowds kind of proves that religion offers nothing uniquely positive. There is nothing good that religion can do that a lack of religion can't, and a lot of bad stuff -- like telling you that you don't have a right to your own body because of god -- that a secular crowd couldn't argue.
First of all, it's not a given that "the only good things religion can offer are offered by rational secular crowds". You don't get to just assert that... you have to demonstrate it, or at least argue it convincingly. Sadly, this Atheist isn't one to expend that kind of effort, and defining as "good things" only those things that secularism can offer just isn't convincing. It can simply mean that atheists are missing out on good things. Secondly, the one example he uses of something "that a secular crowd couldn't argue" has already been demonstrated to have been not merely argued, but put in practice by secularists for several decades. It's the Chinese "one child only" law that he continues to pretend can't exist.
In so pretending for the severalth time, it became clear that his argument was circular, and that it would never acquire more depth than "Religion is bad, religion is stupid." Why? "Because God." Reason need not apply. Logic need not apply. It was a textbook example of religious bigotry. And while I'm always up for a good argument, this bit of mindless tail-chasing was as far from that as it's possible to get, and I had much better things to do than waste my time arguing with a stump.
However, I could explain that until Hell freezes over.
Of course, he took my exit from his pointless hate-fest as a "concession".
It's not the first time he was wrong.
I did continue other aspects of the discussion with rational beings, as noted in my last post.
Hitchens Challenge
In the assertion I quote above, the Atheist is leaning on the "Hitchens Challenge", a task whose main power was in the reputation of its originator, famed atheist Christopher Hitchens. In fact, as I left, and shortly before he deleted the thread, the Atheist parroted Hitchens:
Name for me an act of good will that can be performed by a religious group that cannot be performed by a secular crowd. Something that makes religion morally necessary, not just a lateral step from something you can do with a secular organization.
I've seen it before, and it's actually a rather tiresome rhetorical device, but in reviewing my blog, I see I've never addressed it here. So here it is:
The "Hitchens Challenge" is most useful as a defense of atheism. Employed that way, it basically argues that it's not necessary for an atheist to adopt a religion, since one can act in a moral fashion without it. And in a religiously tolerant society that does not insist upon worship of the One True God as a moral imperative, that's quite good enough, so leave the atheist alone. At its best, it's a call for tolerance.
Here's another form of Hitchens' challenge, and a link to him posing it in a debate against his brother Peter:
"Name me a moral action performed or a moral action recommended or a moral statement made by a believer... name me one by a true believer (mumble)... that could not have been made by a nonbeliever." -- Hitchens vs. Hitchens (YouTube)
The statement took many forms, sometimes being "ethical" rather than "moral", or as above, "an act of good will". But the challenge is useless we are talking about morality, as no one disputes that anyone can exhibit good will; and ethics, where it differs from morality, refers to mere conformity with established rules of conduct.
Note that the argument is actually useless as an attack against religion, as it's logically fallacious. Any moral argument that requires religious belief would not be recognized as moral by Hitchens (or any atheist who poses the challenge in Hitchens' stead), who places himself in the position of being the arbiter of what is a moral act. Therefore, there is no possible "acceptable" answer to the challenge. The faux challenge is offered to support an un-testable claim, which ironically removes it from the realm of that which is scientific. It is an obvious bit of sophistry that should be dropped from the repertoire of those who employ logic, as mere exposure destroys it.
But there is another answer that any atheist, assuming he has working wetware, should understand. This is to counter with a demand for any valid reason whatsoever to do so. Just as there are many governments in the world, and people tend toward those that they prefer, there are many philosophies in the world. If two philosophies yield similar results, then there is certainly no necessity to tear one down in favor of the other if it were not for sheer intolerance.
Take, for instance, a person such as myself... a Libertarian, who is content to ignore whatever beliefs you may have so long as your behavior conforms to the tolerant standards required by our Constitution. Incidentally, those Constitutional standards are in near conformance with half of the commandments incumbent upon Christians: "Love thy neighbor as thyself". And you know what? You don't even have to do that. Just treat others as you'd be treated, and everyone's satisfied. And if you don't comply with the other moral imperative ("Love God"), then that's between you and God.
And if you don't believe in God, then what possible business is it of yours whether I do, so long as I also conform to the same tolerant standards required of you? None whatsoever. So if you want me to waste my time playing a transparently rigged game based on blatantly bad logic, you first have to explain: to what end? An atheist who does not comprehend the invalidity of the Challenge must still prove its utility, and in a nation where religious freedom is defended and actual tolerance is taught, there is none.
The reason the Atheist is using this argument for attack is revealed in his opening statement: this is a "horrible, dangerous line of thinking". Of course, it's not the real line of thinking that he's upset with; it's his mental construction that stands in for it; and he doesn't target that, but the whole of religion that he irrationally blames for it; and he never reveals how it's more dangerous than the murder of innocents that he would have in its place... but hey! It's dangerous! Kill it!
There are those with whom I have substantive disagreements, and I'm happy to cordially disagree. In our democratic process, solutions and compromises may be reached that none of us are completely satisfied with, and I'm happy to conform to them as a citizen should. But this... it's nothing more than an intolerant refusal to consider another position, leading to lashing out at a boogeyman constructed in his own brain... and that's how to suck at atheism.
This is making the rounds again, with a new caption:
Before you get all self-congratulatory about what you perceive as the brilliance of this rebuttal, know that it's bullshit. It's intended to shame, not to convince; and it does so with a bogus interpretation of Christianity that is easily dismissed by Christians who recognize its flaws when Atheists do not. (And stick with me here, because whatever side you're on, I'm probably not going where you expect.)
Since the Atheists have decided to engage in a little Sunday School lesson, here's one[1]. I often find myself having say something like the following when speaking with not just Atheists, but Fundamentalists as well. A quote from Deuteronomy chapter 5:
"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, I am the LORD thy God..." [followed by the "Ten Commandments"]
There were a few sequels.[2]
Pay attention, please: "In your ears". "This day". "With us". "Not... our fathers", "With us", "Even us". "Here". "Alive this day". "With you", "Face to face".
Who do you think that message is meant for? The Bible certainly has a lot of subtexts and allegorical messages with multiple meanings. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. Moses bent over backwards to make this point so excruciatingly plain that I think you have to be either completely blind to the existence of the verse, or actually trying to fail in order to get it wrong.
This Covenant and the Law... of which there are 613 laws... are intended for the people present at that place and moment of time and their descendents. Uncle Yusuf's not here? He's out.
There is no stigma to being "out" of this deal. Jews don't think that Gentiles are horrible people for not keeping the Sabbath because they know that Gentiles don't have to. They don't think non-Jews can't get into Heaven. The LORD is the LORD, and he can take whoever he jolly well pleases without your permission or approval. This verse is why Jews don't proselytize. It's not for YOU.[3]
Pointing this out isn't confrontational; it's informational. If you think that Christians must follow a law simply because it's written in the Old Testament, you're mistaken. If you think that Christians are hypocrites simply because they don't follow this or that Old Testament law, then you're likewise mistaken, and every argument you make based on that presumption fails.
Jesus brought a different simpler message for the rest of us:
"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31. Also stated in Matthew 22:36-40)
For sure, He does start with "Hear, O Israel", as He is following the formulation called Shema Yisrael... this is the heart of Judaism, and He was talking to a Jew. But that audience is expanded when He commands his followers to go out to all nations, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:20). And that's what we should do. Teach, not enforce (Matthew 13).
--==//oOo\\==--
The problem with the President's rebuttal in the clip is that it perpetuates the myth that any of the levitical laws are tenets of the Christian religion, simply ignored by hypocritical followers out of personal choice or convenience. To be sure, there are ignorant hypocrites out there. But the argument fails when applied to actual Christianity rather than the "straw man Christianity" of a Hollywood screenwriter. It is based on a false assumption. As all but a few Christians immediately see the false premise, the only thing it convincingly does is portray Bartlet as a braying jackass. The sound is quite appealing within that species, but to few other creatures.
Now, if the President wanted to actually make his point and not just make an enemy, then he'd have pointed to Leviticus 5 as I just did, AND to Mark or Matthew. Then he might say something like this:
"Although you may view homosexuality as a sin, nowhere did Jesus give you the right to persecute those that commit that sin. You are, in fact, commanded to love those people anyway. God will judge them Himself when the time comes, and He will be merciful or not as He desires. But you're wasting your time worrying about their sins and not your own. Read Matthew 7:5, because it speaks to all of us on this subject:
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
--==//oOo\\==--
Personally, I see it as this: the Christian institute of marriage is between men and women. Jesus confirms it. As such, marriages are performed before God for His blessing. But a secular marriage, even one between a man and woman, isn't a marriage in that sense. My church will consecrate those marriages that are marriages conforming to our beliefs. But my church is not in the habit of denouncing marriages that are performed in other churches, in accordance with other beliefs.[4] If their license may be denied on one point of faith, why not any other? Why not to a Hindu who has many gods? Why not to an Atheist, who has none? On what basis should we selectively pick and choose which Biblical precepts to apply? And if those who do the picking and choosing are not me, then why should they not deny that license to me? This is the argument which President Bartlet so ineptly attempts to make.
We cannot prevent the marriage of those outside our religion, nor should we be allowed to in a country that recognizes our natural right to freedom of religion. The County Courthouse is not my church. The Clerk of Court is not my priest. The licenses that are issued there are now and always have been for secular contracts called marriage, not marriage as defined by any particular religion.
And while we as individuals are free to exercise our religion, our GOVERNMENT is not. In the pursuit of her duties, a Clerk of Court is not acting on her own behalf in accordance with her own beliefs. She is acting as an agent of that government, which is stringently prohibited from interfering in religious matters. Thus, even if one does not accept the valid argument that government-issued marriage licenses represent secular contracts; one must allow that as a religious matter, agents of the government cannot interfere. Remember, we're not talking about just you... If I were in the position where my religion prevented me from acting as a properly impartial agent of the government; if the the free exercise of my religion denied the very same freedom for many, many applicants; then it would be obvious to me that the only ethical resolution between my conflicting responsibilities to God and the State would require that I remove myself from the State and devote myself to God.
--==//oOo\\==--
By the way, this is why I think that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. "License" means "permission", and I see no reason on this green Earth why as a free human being I should have to beg for the permission of the State to marry. I do not seek the legalization of gay marriage for the same reason that I do not favor the legalization of any marriage. In defense of my own religious freedom, I do not recognize the right of the government to "define" what marriage is or is not. I believe the very concept is prohibited by the First Amendment, and that the practice represents one of the first of many erosions of our liberty. Further, it presumes that a thing should be illegal unless permitted, and that is a grave error of judgement, contrary to the concept of a Free Society. I want the State out of marriage completely.
[1] Obviously my theology may differ from yours. Even among Christians, views vary widely. But when faced with a conundrum I've found it most useful to go with a plain reading of the text. Edicts, canons, councils, and interpretations have often done as much to confuse a topic as to explain it, and often creates dogma where none exists in the Biblical text. If, for instance, you are a Christian who argues that you are still bound by Mosaic law, I believe you are at an argumentative disadvantage, as you are now required to explain why you hold that view when the scripture explicitly states that you are not. [2] Illustration of Moses from More Good Foundation via Flickr. [3]Acts 15:19-29 expresses the minimum requirements for Christians: "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.." Clearly, the whole of Mosaic law is not contained in that short sentence, which limits itself to those things which not only honor God and do not exceed the teaching they were commissioned to spread, but which make it possible for those Jewish believers in the early Church to interact with them [4] Indeed, as a matter of course, Christians honor the validity of marriages outside their faith. Law or no, it's not OK to covet a pagan's wife. Despite it not being a "Christian marriage" it is always treated as a valid one. If you choose to think this attitude is demeaning rather than respectful, I invite you to imagine a world in which the contrary is true; where someone of another faith does not recognize your marriage and deems it OK to rape the women of infidels. You really don't have to imagine it, as this is expressly allowed in Islam. Here's the verse. Here's the clerical ruling. Here's the hadith (historical context). And do make sure you check several translation boxes for that verse. Muslims often chide Christians for having multiple translations, but so do they, and some of them are quite deliberately obscure. The clerical ruling, however, never is.
In my last post I outed myself as a longtime Trekkie, something that's no secret to any of my close friends. In fact, the Star Trek original series (ST:TOS) has guided quite a lot of my life. It's the reason I work in technology... I want a hand, however slight, in bringing that sort of world about. And in this post I'm assuming you know quite a bit about the series, but I'll go back through it and add hyperlinks for those who haven't caught up. BTW, all of the referenced episodes are available on Hulu.com.
And I'm sticking with the original series because the Next Generation and its successors had very little to do with the ideals of the Star Trek of the 1960s, but I'll invite you to read this explanation of that.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm blind to certain illogicalities and shortcomings of the scripts. But those who criticize these often forget that, for all its social commentary and forward thinking, it was still a product of its time, as well as the product of a limited budget. So for every 'Amok Time' or 'Journey to Babel' you're bound to have a 'Spock's Brain' or 'Turnabout Intruder'. And sometimes, it's deliberate. In order to comment on a thing, you have to portray that thing. And they didn't always hit it.
But one of the things that was done right was the Vulcan philosophy of Nome, meaning "All", symbolized by the stylized triangle-in-a-circle called the IDIC. Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations. Despite the fact that Gene Roddenberry did want to introduce an item as something to sell through his mail-order business, there is a well-thought-out philosophy behind it.
The IDIC as it appeared on Spock's dress uniform
The IDIC was introduced in the 3rd season episode, 'Is There in Truth No Beauty?', and it is the concept more than the design that is worth noting. The infinite combinations found in the universe being more valuable than the sum of their individual parts.
Later, in 'The Savage Curtain', we're treated to this dialogue between the crew of the Enterprise and a faux "Abraham Lincoln":
Uhura: Excuse me, Captain Kirk Kirk: Yes, Lieutenant? Uhura: Mr. Scott... Lincoln [interrupting]: What a charming negress. Oh. Forgive me, my dear. I know that in my time some used that term as a description of property. Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words. Kirk: May I present our communications officer, Lt. Uhura. Lincoln: The foolishness of my century had me apologizing where no offense was given. Kirk: We've each learned to be delighted with what we are. The Vulcans learned that centuries before we did. Spock: It is basic to the Vulcan philosophy, sir. The combination of a number of things to make existence worthwhile.
Uhura meets Lincoln
There are so very many things to like in that exchange; chief among them, Uhura's perfectly frank and innocent explanation that "in our century we've learned not to fear words". I wish that subsequent generations had even an infinitesimal fraction of the wisdom behind that statement. Keep in mind that this was filmed in the midst of the civil rights movement, by people who believed in it vehemently, and it portrays a deliberate statement of their ideals for a utopian future... in which words have lost their negative connotations as people embrace their diversity and take ownership of their lives and future.
Got that?
A Vulcan "kiss" It's one-half of the salute. Surak's Construct explains
But it was fandom that really ran with the idea. An entire subculture of fan fiction sprang up to explore the concepts. One such exploration is Jacqueline Lichtenberg's monograph "Surak's Construct". I introduce it here because it is chronologically very close to the source material and very accurately reflects the expectations for the future that were held at that time. From a few sparse symbols depicted in the show -- the IDIC, the Vulcan salute, the Vulcan "kiss", and identification of "the philosophy of 'Nome', meaning 'all'" -- Lichtenberg deduces a robust history and philosophy of the Vulcan culture, and explored it in an "alternate universe" of fan fiction called Kraith.
If you read "Surak's Construct", you see that Lichtenberg basically nailed it. This is perfectly consistent with the original series, which offers Vulcan society as a utopian Way. This Way is one that is, in the words of Spock's mother Amanda in 'Amok Time', "Better than ours". As we progress in the series we learn that far from being "unemotional", Vulcans are very deeply emotional. But they reserve their emotions for those things that matter. I dare you to watch 'Journey to Babel' and conclude that Sarek does not love Amanda. I double dare you.
The concepts are simple and clear:
Respect logic. That is, employ reason, as passion has no regard for consequences. But understand passion, so that reason doesn't result in oppression. When reason is employed, use it well, without fallacy. When passion is employed, use it constructively.
Respect life. It is not possible to demand respect for your own life if you are not willing to reciprocate. Your life has only the value you place upon others.
Respect commonality. "All". Recognize yourself in others. People are fundamentally similar. What you think of yourself is true of almost everyone. One of the themes of Star Trek is the utter sameness of our needs, masked by our apparent differences. Even something as totally alien as a Horta was found to share our basic values. The upshot is that if you search yourself with complete honesty, you already know what those values are. You should learn to recognize those points of commonality and value them without demanding complete accord. Furthermore, what we expect of others is largely a projection of what we think of ourselves. Thus, "there is no honor among thieves." You may never learn more about yourself than when you realize that your expectations of strangers tell you nothing about them and everything about you.
Respect individuality. Love yourself. In so doing, treasure your privacy, and spend your emotional capital on that which does not destroy and denigrate. Do not take offense lightly; for to do so is to deny that the views of others have value, and in so doing validate that others are justified in holding your views in similar low regard.
Respect diversity. Love others as you love yourself. In so doing, allow them their unique opinions, especially when they are in opposition to your own. It is not only easy, but meaningless to be "tolerant" of people who are only superficially different from you; the only true test of tolerance is for those with whom you deeply disagree. Allow others their dignity, so that you may require the same from them. Do not take offense lightly, as this is a license to cause offense just as easily.
Where Kirk offers a counter-balance of Human emotionality, it must balance these basic principles. You have to have some pretty damned good reason for violating the Prime Directive... not liking a culture just doesn't cut it. And in 'The City at the Edge of Forever', to preserve history Edith Keeler had to die. Sometimes love doesn't conquer all. Sometimes love must be sacrificed. But you'll see in the original series that Vulcans make valuable advisors and poor leaders. When Spock is in a position of command by himself, he is not so effective as his Captain. Kirk brings with him a moral objectivism and certainty that is largely lacking from the Vulcan's philosophy. Spock's philosophy is relativistic, and renders him inactive. While he and Kirk would likely not disagree on any particular point of the IDIC, Kirk's own philosophy (should he ever utter it) raises respect for individual liberty above all other points. For Kirk, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
And while Vulcans are an ancient race with much experience, it is Humans who built and maintain the Federation. The Vulcans contribute an ideal; Humanity makes it work.
--==//FREE SPEECH ZONE\\==--
Now think of how badly our present society mishandles these concepts. And yes, this is about to get political, because like it or not, while being non-partisan, Star Trek has always been political. It has always been a commentary on the human condition. I would be shirking a duty if I didn't point out the very real historical and current problems that this philosophy of Nome addresses.
It was created in the 1960s: a time when laws were imposed upon people to segregate them and degrade them. In that time IDIC was offered as a pretty straightforward message that we can acknowledge and embrace the differences of others without erasing those differences. We can discard the bad and choose the good, and that -- significantly -- as this is a philosophy, not a law, it can be done individually, by acceptance. In the real world the path to acceptance has been slow. But parallel to that, attempts were made to impose acceptance. We instituted more laws to correct the bad laws, and are now seeing the limits of those laws, which unavoidably preserve and extend those same divisions while creating entirely new problems.
Today, people have not only learned to fear words, but our universities deliberately pander to and promote such fears. They sift innocent actions in search of new fears, and label them "microagressions". They actively train people to search for and take offense at these innocent actions while simultaneously claiming that they are better qualified than you to expound on what heinous insult you really meant by a polite act. They issue trigger warnings so you know when to be fearful. They provide safe spaces in which you can fear and engage in retaliatory hate from afar. They designate free speech zone ghettos where students must go to express opinions that should properly be expressed and discussed intelligently in classrooms; so that other students do not have to exercise the tolerance that is a duty of citizenship. They foment division by celebrating and amplifying negative emotion that they themselves have created through the fear of words. They have utterly wasted the time and effort of a generation on that which does not, will not, and can not work.
In the bright future of Star Trek, James Kirk explains, "We've each learned to be delighted with what we are."
But in today's society, built by the children of the people who first dreamed of that utopia, people have been taught to hate what they are. On the one hand, people who are bright and capable now firmly believe that they need lower standards to compensate for the inadequacies they have been told they have. So we admit people into universities for which they are not prepared on the basis of superficialities and use the unsurprising drop-out rates of these unprepared people to justify a further lowering of the standards. All the while we ignore the plain fact that anybody of any race or class who was admitted with similar lack of preparation would also fail. We blame "racism" for these failures while simultaneously insisting that race does not exist, and denouncing those who agree.
On the other hand, some others are taught to blame themselves for past injustices in which they had no hand. They are held to be guilty for the sins of previous generations. They are taught that they are the undeserving recipients of privilege while at the same time being held to objectively higher standards. This results in a higher success rate for those relative few who meet the higher standards, ironically caused by the fundamentally bigoted nature of the selection process. Meanwhile, the fact of their numerical majority masks the vast quantity who have been excluded. Our attention is drawn from the fact that they not only succeed, but fail in greater numbers. We encourage adults to live as children well past the age where their parents themselves became parents. To a great degree this is due to our failure as a society to value diversity in occupation. Though there is genuine value and dignity in an honest trade, the sellers of education have consistently insisted that "success" must be measured "by degree". Of course, this success is achieved by buying their product.
We have been taught to weigh ourselves against the value of others rather than search for the intrinsic value within ourselves.
We have flushed Logic down the toilet.
--==\\FREE SPEECH ZONE//==--
In the bright future of Star Trek, the IDIC is a celebration of diversity.
IDIC is a celebration of those combinations that you would not have chosen for yourself. It is also a celebration of those combinations that you would have chosen. It's not just your "right to be weird", but equally someone else's right not to be. Regarding diversity, if you can't be content with the knowledge that someone else does not want to embrace your way of life then you are doing it wrong.
Let that sink in. It's not about them accepting you. That's not within your control; thus it's completely useless as a practical philosophy. Rather, it's about you accepting you, and allowing that others have the right to accept you or not, as they desire. It's about knowing that whatever their desire may be, it does not affect what you are. Your rights are unchanged. IDIC means that no matter who you are, others are not required to like what you like, think what you think, or feel what you feel. It is the not-you-ness that makes it IDIC,
Likewise, you are free to follow your own principles. It is a personal philosophy over which you have control. You don't have to convince anyone else to do this. The philosophy can be shared, but the practice can not. It cannot be imposed, only accepted. It is this completeness of personal control that makes it Nome.
Kirk recalls to the Spock-clone the philosophy of the Vulcan IDIC and what it means. He also asks if an army of Spocks could impose peace on the galaxy and make other beings accept the Phylosian philosophy in defiance of the Vulcan IDIC concept. The Spock-clone decides that it cannot be done. ("The Infinite Vulcan") -- from The Star Trek Concordance by Bjo Trimble
Despite being uniquely individual, IDIC is objectively better than what we've been doing. Its application at the individual level provides a means of finding contentment that is not dependent on others. And as more practice it, that contentment can only grow exponentially, even among those who do not yet practice it. It is not dependent upon any established religion or culture... nor is contrary to the same, except those cultures that do not respect logic, life, commonality, individuality, and diversity. In such situations, where a relativist might sit back and observe injustice, we take the Human course of action and oppose that injustice.
Look, this is a made-up philosophy. They all are. It may seem to you to be quite silly for a person to seriously hold out the fictional culture of a fictional race and ask you to look at it seriously... not to adopt it, but to adapt it. But I'm doing that because a concept may be found to have value no matter where it originates. And this is not faddish or superficial. It requires thought to balance respect for the five points, and a complex morality emerges.
My thoughts and feelings are mine to control
I can choose to not take offense at our differences
I can choose to treat others with dignity
I can choose to allow others their privacy
I can maintain my own privacy about things that are no one else's business
Do I do all of these things? Usually... by which I mean the great majority of the time. Sometimes I choose not to. Not only do I deem it prudent at times, but it validates that these things are choices. But I must admit that I am dismayed by people who honestly believe that they are "liberal" and wish to impose on others, silence others, compel others to their bidding, spy on others, punish others for differing opinions, and demand "acceptance" where a reverence for diversity requires tolerance. I am equally dismayed by people who honestly believe they are "conservative" and wish to do the very same, who violate privacy and property, and who practice exclusion in the name of freedom. They are both so very far removed from the ideals that we dreamed of. And if they do not abandon their present delusions, we will never, ever achieve that society.
