Saturday, February 18, 2006

Morality and Teddy’s Big Stick



This post is in response to one made here, opening a discussion between the Streetapologist and me. This was originally intended to be a comment to his post, but the questions asked of me required a long answer that is not all that simple to articulate. I would ask anyone who reads this to comment on whether or not it is understandable, and then of course feel free to state their own opinion. My response is kind of convoluted, but I know of no other way to express it.

First, a little about me in response to Streetapologist’s sharing his background. This has actually been the hardest part of this post. If you have ever seen the TV show “Connections”, you will understand my problem. There are so many small and large experiences and discoveries in my life that contributed to my belief system that I could write at least two book chapter’s worth of material. Every time I started to relate an abridged version, I found myself wandering down the various corridors of past experience and stopped when I heard the guitar chord intro from “Alice’s Restaurant” playing in my head.

The Short-Short Version:

I was raised in a Christian household and actively participated in the church as a member of the choir from the 3rd grade until my senior year in High School. In addition, I went to Sunday School, Bible studies classes, and went through the Confirmation process. In 1976, I was offered a scholarship to a religious college for the ultimate purpose of becoming a Methodist Minister. Among a myriad of other influences, I grew up a Protestant in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood, and was subjected to some stupid and most incomprehensible discrimination. I had Jewish friends that were treated even worse. This left some unanswered questions about faith and belief. I politely declined the scholarship, and left the church without ever having practiced ritual cannibalism. I set out to find out about other faiths, finding both strong belief and whimsy along the way. I have also seen ritualistic behavior that fills some people’s need for such without being strictly religious. An abridged time line of my travels can be found here. What is missing is all of the religious studies that I did not identify with, my forays into Psychology, Theatre Arts, and History. Interesting fact: The early Christian church condemned the theatre. They didn’t like the competition, and recognized that it gave away too much of the “production” (theatrical) aspects of the average church service.

As I told the Streetapologist, I cannot agree with his assertion that Morality is the Achilles Heel of this atheist. He asks the following questions:

1. On what epistemic foundation(s) does the atheist base his morality?

2. How can any morality be objective based on the answer to the first question.

To the first question, I must say that I can only answer for myself. “The atheist” is as mythical a creature as “the Arab”, or “the Urban Black Male”, or “the Christian”, for that matter. I don’t think this was an intentional attempt to stereotype, so I will rephrase to what I think you meant. How does an atheist find an epistemological foundation for morality? Damn good question. I have yet to find two exactly alike. I tend toward Empiricism with nods toward Realism and Rationalism. When the cultural meme of Loki descends upon me, I play with Relativism (fnord). I do not actually espouse Relativism, but it leads to some heated debates. My nods toward Rationalism arise from a recognition that man is an animal, and no matter how dominant our forebrain becomes, we still have instincts. Call this genetically transmitted knowledge. This might also serve as the basis for an alternative explanation for what religious people identify as innate good or evil. My nods toward Realism arise from the fact that it is simpler to accept that we are participating in a common reality than it is to concoct alternative explanations.

To the second question, I must say, “Damn tough question!” I must consider objectivity in this arena as a matter of degree. What I mean by this is that the mature thinker will not impose standards of morality on the animal kingdom. Since standards of morality are only imposed upon humans, this makes the entire concept subjective to that degree at least. Further, some mentally impaired, and those few humans in modern times that have been raised in feral conditions have been exempted from moral judgments. This reduces moral consideration to those who are deemed capable of developing an internal “moral compass”. This can also be stated as a “moral framework”, or “moral sensibilities”. Western legal systems have been very discriminating on this point, providing a narrow definition for the acceptance of the “insanity defense”.

Objectivity is defined as the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions. If one does not believe in SuperAlpha, invisible Ultra-being, one must begin with an assumption that what is being observed has a different cause, no matter what the stated cause or apparent effect. The proponents of God have a lot of rules. Besides believing that they have been ordered to live by these rules by an incomprehensively superior being with a peculiar attraction to us lesser beings, they also believe in the inherent rightness of these rules. In contrast, when the voices inside David Berkowitz’s head told him how to behave, the rest of society was quick to disagree with the perceived rightness of those actions.

If you believe that there is no god, then the god’s rules become the clergy’s rules. Seen in this way, they are rules made by men for men. In that context, they are subject to the attribution of noble, noble but misguided, or base motives. These motives might include forging a cohesive society with a strong sense of identity for mutual protection. These motives might also include limiting the power of the alpha-monarch, staying close to the seats of power, and glomming some of that power for the clergy itself. The Vatican, and folksy folks like Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham all have something in common: lots of tax-exempt money to play with, and other earthly luxuries. This owes more to Paul’s attempts to make a name for himself, and out-competing other pagan religions than it does to some ascetic holy man with a posse that got hung by the Romans for harvesting (stealing) other people’s grain on the Sabbath. That is, of course, if it ever actually happened. I tend to think that some of it did. I also think that most urban legends have a grain of truth, however much distorted it becomes later.

If the god’s rules are just the clergy’s rules, then what is the god in that perspective? The Enforcer. The Big Threat. That which is uncontestable. The god can be a seal of approval, or a trump card. Attribute your will to the god, and those who oppose become blasphemers or infidels! Can you feel the power? What then is morality in this context? It is the morality of a five-year old. If you don’t do what you are told, you will be punished. Piaget has this to say on the subject:

Stage of intellectual development: Intuitive Phase, age 4-7 years. “Speech becomes more social, less egocentric. The child has an intuitive grasp of logical concepts in some areas. However, there is still a tendency to focus attention on one aspect of an object while ignoring others. Concepts formed are crude and irreversible. Easy to believe in magical increase, decrease, disappearance. Reality not firm. Perceptions dominate judgment.

In moral-ethical realm, the child is not able to show principles underlying best behavior. Rules of a game not developed, only uses simple do's and don'ts imposed by authority.”

This is also the period of development that Erikson identifies as the time when a growing child goes through the second, third, and fourth crises of psychological development: learning autonomy versus shame, initiative versus guilt, and industry versus inferiority. Coincidentally, this is also the time in one’s life when religious indoctrination begins. In Christian Sunday School, a young child learns shame (Adam and Eve and the fig leaf), universal guilt (original sin), and inferiority (we are the unworthy creations of a vastly more powerful being, so don’t piss Him off). All this, and we have only looked at the book of Genesis. Without getting too far afield in the discussion of morality, I’ll just point out that the effect of this indoctrination is to create an insecure group that is trained to defer to those that are perceived to be in positions of power or authority. Those who have feelings of entitlement can and do cut a relentless swath through groups of people so emotionally prepared (disturbed). This greatly enhances a police officer’s ability to take control of a situation, a government’s ability to form armies, and a swindler’s ability to commit bunko.

So, upon what basis does an Empiricist build a moral structure? I believe that I am sharing this planet with many others like myself. I believe that peaceful social cooperation is constructive and mutually beneficial. I believe that all forms of coercion are hostile acts that create inequity and/or injustice and anger. In contrast, a mutually agreed-upon contract is one where the value of goods or services exchanged is perceived to be equal or nearly so. In all negotiations, one side or the other must go first. The only exception to this is when both sides make the first move together. I perceive it to be in my best interest not to perpetrate what could be interpreted as a hostile act against the Houses of my neighbors. My neighbors, for the most part, afford me the same respect. David Berkowitz is an extreme example, but generally speaking, people don’t have much difficulty figuring out what is and what is not socially appropriate behavior. Our parents, elders, and peers teach us many of these things at an early age by shaping our behavior. Some of what they teach us is cultural bias, or prejudice, like the “dirty hand” concept in many Eastern societies. Much of it though is just common sense, like “don’t take things that don’t belong to you”, including another person’s life. Did Moses really need a super being to tell him that? If so, he was the second biggest idiot leader of all time. That goes for messing with someone else’s spouse, or molesting their kids too. It hardly takes a genius to notice that this can create a homicidal rage in the more possessive/protective citizens among us. If this all sounds a bit like the Golden Rule, that should not be surprising. The Golden Rule is an axiom of societal living. It is true that I was first exposed to this notion in Sunday school, but the church has no ownership of this concept. The church was filling a need as a socialization instrument, and in part bending that need to fit the needs of the church. Nowhere does the Golden Rule say, “or God will get you!”

Living a moral life because you perceive this to be the dictate of a supreme being, and because you fear the punishment of eternal damnation is not morality. This is obedience at best, and pain avoidance at worst. It is fear of a stick so big that Teddy Roosevelt could only dream of such power. It is also a stick that is not of this world, dealing with the alleged afterlife as it does. Therefore, those that assert the existence of eternal damnation neither can, nor have to (by their doctrine), prove its existence.

In order to have an internal moral framework, one must work out for one’s self why some behaviors are proper and some are improper. That’s not to say you can’t have help putting it together, but one must understand and accept the reasons behind the rules in order to make informed decisions and not just live by another’s rules. In fairness to the many intellegent religious people I have known, I must add that they are as capable of internalizing a moral structure as I am. Only some religious and some non-religious people remain stuck in the basic "carrot and stick" incentive toward moral conduct. The lessons of the Bible that speak about punishment and damnation are speaking to this crude and coercive form of moral enforcement. Like training wheels on a bicycle, consequence-based morality needs to be outgrown and discarded in order for real, individual moral growth to take place.

4 Comments:

At 8:09 PM, Blogger BEAST said...

A good post, albeit a little too long to read.

It is true that atheists do not all believe in the same philosophies. For me, my libertinage accords me the basis of my fundamental beliefs. What does not appeal to me may appeal to my fellow brethrens, and vice versa, hence I believe in liberty and rights for all.

Hence I am a strong advocate for issues like gay rights and abortion. My instincts tells me that being gay is not to my liking; abortion a somewhat reverse to what I feel is Man's basic instinct to preserve his offspring, but that does not necessarily necessitate that I oppose both ideas.

Good post, I will be observing your debate with this looney with relish.

Sincerely
Beast

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

The mystery of the disappearing post is solved. I edited this early this morning, before I had my coffee, and saved it as a draft instead of publishing. Apparently, that pulls the previous version from the site.

 
At 10:36 PM, Blogger streetapologist said...

Sorry, my post will be coming soon. It has been hectic lately. Anyway thanks for the thoughtful post and my reply will be posted in the near future.

 
At 9:29 AM, Blogger Dale Callahan said...

My background is a somewhat different then yours. I was raised for 24 years in a home where the Christian faith was NOT taught. I was converted into the Christian faith right before my 25th birthday.

In my 15 years as a Christian I have studied myself out of many denominations...why? Because they were not consistent with what the Bible taught...and were not faithful to what the Church has taught throughout her history.

Many people are raised in a very weak form of Christianity...and mistake the part for the whole.

A philosophical unbeliever comes along and rips and tears his denominations beliefs to shreds and the Christian concludes that the Christian faith as a whole is wrong.

Have you studied different forms of Christian thought?

If you are honestly a truth seeker you won't want to find a straw man to tear down...that is easy. You will want to find the best arguments for the Christian faith to see if they stand the test of the unbeliever.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home