The Prejudice of the Hypothetical

I am reading god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I’m less than half way through this book, and already I owe Mr. Hitchens a debt of gratitude. He has identified for me a type of confusion I had not noticed. From page 18:

“A week before the events of September 11, 2001, I was on a panel with Dennis Prager, who is one of America’s better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a ‘straight yes/no question,’ and I happily agreed. Very well, he said, I was to imagine myself in a strange city as evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now --- would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? As the reader will see, this is not a question to which a yes/no answer can be given. But I was able to answer as if it were not hypothetical.”

His answer is long and excellent, but that would be a spoiler. Aside from the rephrasing required for a yes/no answer, Mr. Hitchens recognizes this type of question and identifies it elsewhere in the book as a “trick question.”

The human brain tends to evaluate hypothetical questions like this one subjectively. It is statistically doubtful that one living in the US has ever encountered a group of militant religious fanatics exiting a prayer meeting. Further, it is doubtful that the description “militant religious fanatics” would be employed in the process of elimination one would use to identify a group of men exiting a religious edifice in the US. Additional visual queues would be required to plant that suspicion, like the presence of side arms, or KKK robes, Nazi arm bands, and the like. Elsewhere around the globe, the possibility is more immediate to the casual onlooker, and including that possibility in one’s list of possible identifications could make the difference between life and death.

Our life experiences color the internal picture we paint to interpret the hypothetical question. In addition, those fortunate enough to live in relatively peaceful countries are conditioned to give people and situations the “benefit of the doubt.” Those living in more dangerous times and places know this can get you killed. When a person asks a hypothetical question, and that person is depending on the generic nature of that question to color the audience’s perception of the answer to that question, a subtle trap has been laid. It’s obvious to me that Mr. Hitchen’s intellect, education, or both is superior to mine because he recognized this, and was able to avoid the direct, ambiguous answer with concrete examples supporting his position. Thanks to him, I will do the same should the situation arise.

Nobody Takes me Seriously

Not that I really care, and not entirely true perhaps, but true about one particular attitude that I have adopted in recent years. I no longer attempt to argue logically with Theists. Instead, I tend to fight irrationality with irrationality. I seem to have lost credibility with this tactic. I think it’s a perfectly logical response to the bullshit. Here’s why.

Take for example, 4Truth.net. This is a textbook example of my problem with theistic argumentation. It’s full of what Robert Anton Wilson would label fnords. First you have the name. Anyone who would try to preempt your good judgment by telling you that they are about to tell you the truth is probably about to bullshit you. This web site does nothing to refute that hypothesis. Like most theistic arguments, they stack the deck, lay down the cards, and then act like they have done something amazing.

Here’s what I’m talking about.

"Hasn't the existence of God been disproved?"

Christian Response: The person who asks this question usually believes that the existence of God has been disproved by philosophy, psychology, or science.

That’s nice. How many times…. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You cannot shift the burden of proof away from your claim that such a fantastic and impossible being exists. Your belief in an unsubstantiated god is nothing short of delusional. It is not necessary to disprove the existence of some entity whose existence has not been proved. No serious pragmatist or philosopher would ask this question. The person who builds this straw man is trolling for the easily confused

Philosophical Objections to the Existence of God

The Problem: The major philosophical objection to the existence of the God of the Bible involves the problem of evil. Christianity teaches that God is both all-powerful … and all-good … Christianity also maintains that God created everything ... Yet, evil exists in the world. Therefore, many atheists argue that either God is not all good and is the author of evil, or God is not all-powerful and cannot do anything about evil. Either way, the atheist contends that the all-good and all-powerful God of the Bible cannot exist.

Christian Response: Christians answer the philosophical arguments against the existence of God by reaffirming the Christian doctrine of creation. Unlike pantheistic religions, Christianity teaches that God has created that which is not God. The doctrine of creation teaches that the universe is not a part of God, nor is it an illusion in the mind of God. Christianity teaches that God has invested His creation with true existence. Not only did God create something separate from Himself, but also made part of His creation in His image ... According to the Bible, humanity has been made in the image of God. One of the implications of being made in God's image is the ability to make decisions. People are not programmed robots or animals controlled by their instincts-but possess free will.

When theologians refer to human beings possessing free will they do not mean that people have unlimited options, but simply that they have the ability to choose between available options.

When God created humanity with free will He gave the ability to truly love or reject Him. God gave the ability to freely obey or disobey Him. God does not force anyone to love or follow Him …. Christianity teaches that it is the misuse of free will that allowed evil to come into the world ...

I’ve removed the Biblical references from the above. You don’t have to prove to me that your delusion is internally consistent. I grant that this is what you believe because somebody wrote it down and someone else swears by it. Loudly. And repeatedly. Ad Nauseum.

How many ways has the deck been stacked here? First, this is not the major philosophical objection, just one of many, and an old one known as the Problem of Evil (POE). The alleged “misuse” of Free Will does not answer the question, it begs it. How exactly can one “misuse” free will? (A thing for which we are beholden to no external entity, by the way.) The point is, you either have it, or you don’t. Having it, all options are possible, and none by definition can be “misuse”.

There is also a nice, simplistic view of options presented here. One either loves God or rejects God. No nuance of believing but hating versus thinking the whole religious edifice is built upon a crock of bullshit. One is never rejecting the religious corporations, one is rejecting the alleged and conveniently absent god. People have been successfully murdered through this deliberate misdirection. Maybe that’s one reason why the major monotheistic religions keep pushing their holy books and downplaying their own history.

I could go on, but it’s just more of the same. The site refers to “good and evil” and “sin” with no understanding or admission that this is all part of the religious paradigm. It is a gross oversimplification of the human condition and always has been. People like black and white solutions, but the world is in color and shades of gray. It’s just so much easier to jerk people around by their previously implanted black-and-white prejudices/sensibilities. We do not live in a comic book with comic book heroes and villains. Don’t get me wrong; there is ethical, and unethical behavior. There are honorable, and dishonorable, and altruistic, and self-serving behaviors. All can be justified. All justifications are not equally compelling. Manipulating a person’s sense of shame in order to make them subservient and a lesser human than their full potential will allow is criminal. This is the primary crime of religion.

Long story short, there is no arguing with a person who argues from within an internally consistent, closed-loop delusion. This is why I prefer to tell the believer, “Your god has wings, and wheels, and looks like a big Tylenol!” … or something like that, usually with a bit more contextual relevance. Even if they don’t see it, I hope the juxtaposition will make some other reader realize that what the religious zealot believes is no less ridiculous than what I can invent on the spot.

The image is actor Frank Fontaine, a.k.a. Crazy Guggenheim.

Pastor Caught Lying For Jesus

Story here, with hundreds of comments. In brief, Daniel Florian, owner of the Unreasonable Faith blog, caught Pastor Chris Fox posing as an atheist and basically putting forward the usual ridiculous, distorted talking points of the religious machine regarding atheists and their alleged lack of morals.

The constant reiteration of this “Lord of the Flies” style argument tells me two things about religious indoctrinees. First, it seems likely that they have genuinely bought into the idea that morality is external, authoritarian, and dictatorial in nature. They further believe that it requires the “God-stamp” of authority or else it is a meaningless, arbitrary, edict imposed by one group of humans upon another. Morals are neither arbitrary nor meaningless, no matter where you think they come from. This kind of black and white, binary thinking is common among the religious, even though their behavior, like most humans, does not conform to that philosophical stance. In any event, their moral compass is (believed to be) external to themselves, and so they apparently believe they would have no morals without such a structure.

Second, it tells me that many people actually take my advice. I often tell people that if I want to learn about Jewish culture for example, I find the best people to ask about it are members of the American Nazi Party. If I want to understand the atheistic point of view, the best person to ask would be a member of the clergy. Why would he lie?

I’m not going to bash Pastor Fox too hard here. I have seen plenty of Poe posts on religious blogs, so this behavior is hardly confined to religious types. He has apologized, and stated that he realizes that this kind of behavior is misguided. Maybe he’s not lying about that.

I do want to address one of the comments on that blog that seems to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. There are two comments near the top from “revival09”. This is obviously a person with a strong belief in divine magic of the Christian variety. You can go read the posts if you want, they are a little long to post here in their entirety. These excerpts will give you the flavor.

“Hi, it should not be a great shock or revelation that a single church leader would be a hypocrite. As a matter of fact Jesus reserved his harshest words for the “church leaders”. He called them hypocrites, white-washed sepulcures, vipers.
But that could if you searched apply to anyman regardless of his profession. The problem would be if you could describe Jesus as a hypocrite.

You see He never said “Follow them”, He said “Follow Me”. In fact He said do as they say, not as they do….

…I am certainly not a theologian or schollar or anything like but I do have one advantage. I have personally witnessed numerous life changing miracles, healings, signs and wonders by Jesus.”

Yeah. It’s always just one bad apple. How many questionable acts by how many members of the clergy does it take before one apologist admits there is a pattern of behavior among a significant number of clergymen that one might label egomaniacal and immoral?

The book says that Jesus said a bunch of nasty things about the clerics. This is one of those things you have to throw in if you want to create a closed-loop delusion. Denounce the clergy when necessary. Yup. Got that base covered. No need to go outside for an explanation. House of cards intact. Sleep on.

Revival09 either believes that he has seen divine magic, or he is lying for Jesus and believes that the end justifies the means. I would really like to know why he thinks it is that God can’t or won’t heal amputees? I’m collecting the lame excuses that apologists attribute to God’s behavior in this matter.

From revival09’s second comment:

“You’re interested in knowing more about miracles? Of course you are. Why wouldn’t you be. Are you ill? Have you financial problems? Relationship problems? Is your life empty? What are you looking for from the person that you reject?...”

Note the immediate jump to conclusion. If you want to know about “miracles” you must want something. Academic curiosity is foreign to this one. There is no imagining that someone might be genuinely interested in how these witnessed “miracles” either broke the laws of statistical probability, or passed muster as not being outright fraud. Interested parties have been faking miracles for centuries. It’s a well-documented behavior of human scam artists and the Catholic Church.

"…I’m not going to try and Sell my Jesus to you. You need Him not the other way around.…”

Who wants to bet that the author cannot recognize the inherent contradiction in those two sentences?

I leave you with this thought:

“Praise God from whom all blessings flow….”

Fnord.

It took me quite a while to figure out what Robert Anton Wilson meant when he used the word “fnord”. It took even longer to be sure. It didn’t help that those calling themselves Discordians while firmly planting tongue in cheek didn’t seem to have any idea. I can tell you with assurance that the above quote is a fnord. You will see them if you really want to and if you try.

Nuevo Feudalism, to coin a phrase.

I started this as a reply to a comment from concerned citizen. It grew from there. This is basically how the elitists, control-freaks, and bullshit artists strive to order society – with their own favored selves near the top of course.

Ok, should I do this from the top down, or the bottom up? Lets take it from the top.




Feudalism: Invisible, unassailable, uber-alpha God on top.

“King of Kings and Lord of Lords” – Handel’s Messiah

No change.

Next tier: Emperors and Kings. Heads of state by alleged divine right. Modern heads of state range from elected (temporary) to dictator (semi-permanent). While not lifetime positions, nor inherited generally speaking, most of these demagogues obtained these positions by some recognized “right”, usually by amassing a large enough, or strong enough power base of followers. Most also hold this position in part by pandering to religious authority to some degree. Most also have the ability to declare war on their neighbors despite legal or constitutional provisions (if any) designed to limit this power. In this way, and in many smaller ways today’s leaders can be observed to be above the law, as were the kings of old. All of these leaders cultivate an inner circle of political cohorts and advisors, paralleling the kings’ courts of old.

Next tier is the Powerful Influence Peddlers. Once reserved for Bishops and Cardinals, this level is now open to anyone who can amass a following, and/or use influence on public opinion to enrich or destroy a public figure. Televangelists and Special Interest Groups make up this group, as well as those controlling traditional religious organizations. Don’t discount the secret and not-so-secret societies either, although conspiracy theorists tend to exaggerate their abilities. This group is all about manipulating the collective consciousness, and extorting preferential treatment on the basis of that ability.

Next we have the Barons, Dukes, and other Landed Gentry. In today’s society, these are the ultra-rich. These are the Majority Stockholders, the Investment Fund Managers, the Private Investors, and others that can control by the manipulation of large sums of money.

Next, the Lesser Gentry. The Earls of old have been replaced in part by Corporate Upper Management, and in part by the Faux Aristocracy. The Corporate Upper Management oversees a fiefdom of employees and managers. As a rule, they are grossly overpaid in proportion to their actual contribution to the running of the business. This is usually a reward for golf course intrigues, and past favors that provide (or did provide) a tactical advantage to the business in the marketplace. The Faux Aristocracy are The Celebrities. Whether athletes or actors, singers or glitterati, these are the folks that have been made incredibly wealthy in proportion to their actual lasting contribution to society. These are the hyped ones. Those that can influence public opinion or fashion because the Heralds of the Press say they can. Almost all of these Celebrities are where they are because they make even more money for someone or something else.

The working face of the Landed Gentry and Lesser Gentry is the Corporate Entity. This fictitious “person” represents an amalgamation of investors and management. It is subject to some specially tailored laws, and exempt from others that apply to real persons. In this way, the corporate entity shields the owners from some liability and responsibility for the actions of the corporation. For better or worse.

The fiefdom of feudalism has been largely replaced by the franchise. Since the 1960s, owner-operators have been steadily replaced by franchisees and hirelings. This is true in the restaurant business, and for department stores, pharmacies, gas stations, funeral homes, condominium and apartment building ownership. Similar consolidations have happened in the areas of public utilities, newspapers, and film and television production.

The Guilds have been replaced by the Unions. Need I say more?

The Tenant Farmer has been replaced by the Working Stiff. What percentage of all the homes in the world are owned by the banks? Title has been largely replaced by debt instruments. Add up the money owed by the average wage earner that goes to pay taxes and service debt, and toss in the unreimbursed mandatory insurance payments. Multiply by 100, divide by the annual salary, and you have the percentage of that persons life and toil that is owned by a third party. When calculating taxes, don’t forget the tax component of fuel, sales tax, and value-added taxes on “luxuries” like restaurant meals and hotel rooms. Actually, it can be even worse. If you “own” a Condo, you share ownership with the land owner. Your Association fees have a profit component, are not optional expenses, and are not negotiable by the individual.

If you live in an industrialized nation, go visit a Third World country, go to a market, and discover what a premium you are paying for food back home. The Food Deployment Industry has largely marginalized or destroyed regional farming and competitive farmer’s markets. The industry is an Oligopsony. This produces a few large “competitors”, some kind of barrier to entry, and prices are largely uniform and non-competitive. This does not imply price fixing. Prices are set by a cost-plus formula that is roughly uniform for all competitors. They charge all the market will bear, and they create the market. Between supermarket chains and restaurant chains, corporate entities have a practical lock on food production and distribution in developed countries. They control competition by controlling the markup on the wholesale portion of the supply chain. All of this overhead is another way that the corporations own, or reabsorb, your wages.

Next tier down is the Outlaws, or Riff-raff. In Feudal society, these were the thieves and poachers. Organized Crime is a hierarchy of its own. The working component of this group serves a valuable purpose to the greater hierarchy. The general fear of robbery and assault justifies the levy of taxes for the purpose of local militias in the role of law enforcement. The law enforcement agencies quickly become a concentration of power and a tool of coercion for the government. On a domestic level, these agencies quickly occupy themselves enforcing laws that have nothing to do with crime per se. They will respond to domestic disputes, loud noises, and hand out speeding and parking tickets. While unable to pursue potential criminals until a crime has been committed, they nonetheless perform many tasks of social engineering that ultimately either raises revenues for the Municipal Government, or protects the interests of the Insurance Companies. On a wider scale, the working criminal gives justification to gun-toting government agencies like the ATF and the DEA. These organizations quickly establish an equilibrium with their opponents. There is no vested interest in large-scale curtailment. If the DEA were to expend the energy and manpower to achieve a victory in the “war” on drugs, there would be both heavy casualties, and heavy layoffs. This is also why, until 9/11, and arguably afterward, the Border Patrol was one of the most grossly under funded agencies in Law Enforcement.

The bottom rung is the Mendicants, or Beggars. I think I have covered their role in modern society well enough in The Globalization of Poverty. In feudal times, they also served as an example of both disenfranchisement, and a group that required the help of the community to survive. One major difference was that back then, they were more often directly subsidized and less often the beneficiary of some fund-raising organization. This also creates a major opportunity for tax evasion, then as now.


Image from here.