But Are Things Really Permissable?

“If God does not exist then everything would be permitted.”

Believers are touting this as a way to infuriate atheists – and it does, but not in the way that believers would like.

The statement is not infuriating statement, it’s an ineffective claim with no basis whatsoever.

On its face, the claim effectively infantilizes humans and reflects a deep self loathing and no self esteem on the part of the claimant. We are capable of determining what’s acceptable or not on our own – and every civilization has done so – and so does every human.

The quoted claim – from a Dostoevsky novel – is one of the most intellectually dishonest claims a person can make; and that is what makes it frustrating. It’s not right, it’s a lie that believers tell themselves. It’s a plea for special consideration, appeal to vague authority and probably a half dozen other fallacies.

Believers are simply not honest enough to say “this is what I think,” instead, they invent an external god as a divine authority for whatever they then claim that god says is moral or ethical or okay or unacceptable.

This is plainly evident from the spectrum of morals and ethics not only between each distinct religion, but also within the variations within the religion. Christianity includes Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran and more flavours and with each variety further seasoned with fundamental, reform, orthodox. Even Christianity isn’t monolithic and united in what’s moral or at least, what’s moral right now.

Anyone who is not able to be in a situation or consider a hypothetical situation and make a determination of what the best and worst courses of action/response are, is admitting that they are not moral or ethical.

If you have to resort to an external source of morals, ethics and values, then how exactly is that person in a position to determine if that external source is moral or ethical?

Following a list of rules to obtain reward or avoid punishment is no different from a single cell organism responding to stimulus.

I rejected claims for a deity when I was twelve years old. That’s the sum total of what an atheist is – a rejection of the claim for a deity.

In the 32 years since that time, I have not murdered, assaulted or raped anyone. And while there’s been a few times that assault was tempting, it was never as a first strike or problem solving – it was a responsive action to defend myself or another person.

The threat of punishment is not a deterrent. Because prison is not always a consequence of violent or anti-social behaviour. To go to prison, you have to be caught. That isn’t always possible, even with the state of forensics.

Even if you are caught, there’s still the matter of the trial, mitigating circumstances, time off for good behaviour or time served pending trial. That’s assuming the case against you isn’t lost on a technicality. Prison is not a deterrent because there’s too many unknown variables to make a risk assessment.

Which is where that conservative belief that prison is a deterrent falls down. People rarely make risk assessments; and, in fact, risk assessments like any rationalization, comes after the decision is made.

The way that we function is that a decision is made and we rationalize it afterwards to be acceptable within our belief, values and ethical framework.

That is the heart of the difference between a believer and a non-believer – believers cling to an external rationalization for their behaviour; while non-believers don’t pretend that decisions are anything but our own.

It is as if believers do not accept personal accountability – which, since they demand it in others, it makes sense.

We tend to dislike those who embody a characteristic that we lack. Which is why homophobes hate gay people – we’re not afraid of our sexuality, we embrace it.

Aside: I don’t dislike believers, I dislike what they do. (See how phony that sounds – you can’t separate the sin from the sinner) – in reality, I think that what I am jealous of and why I dislike believers is their sense of certainty in a world where certainly doesn’t seem possible.

It seems to come down to anyone who is overly concerned with what other people are doing, are concerned because of their internal baggage. They can’t believe that other people do not feel or think or believe as they do, so they demand conformity to what they are publically claiming that they are: usually heterosexual, monogamous, charitable and compassionate – when more often than not, they are deep closet homosexual, adulterous, embezzling and uncaring towards their fellow humans. Especially those humans who do not conform.

After all, we all have access to the same information upon which to base decisions and conclusions – so it must be that believers are intimidated and have low self esteem when other people arrive at a different conclusion.

I had an experience recently that woke me up to this idea that people are threatened when other people have the same information but arrive at a different conclusion.

I was on the street and a woman about half my age was asking for time to talk about a charity. I stopped to talk because the groups’ name caught my ear, but I hadn’t understood what the group was about.

She explained that the group was raising money for the education of women in third world countries with the goal of reducing the number of children the women had.

I thought about how simplistic and even naïve her understanding was, so I explained that I had read the report from the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference – http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/declar.htm – which drew a completely blank stare from the girl.

I explained that of course education was the only way to explain why the strategy of birthing 6 children so that 2 would live to adulthood was not sustainable, how educated women with fewer children improve the Gross National Product and improves the local economy and the many other benefits of educated women with enshrined and protected civil rights mean.

I explained to her that education was solving the wrong problem; and that the bigger problem is global overpopulation.

And, the solution to overpopulation is to do nothing and let the population levels sort themselves out.

Much like shooting wolves does not increase the caribou, elk and moose population – reducing infant mortality to a survivable level will only result in a longer term net increase in population, not the decrease that is desperately needed.

Any move towards ensuring increasing population is a move towards mass extinction. Which, in a way, also solves the problems that humanity faces, unfortunately, it means taking a lot of other species and habitat out with us.

But, in many ways, even that is inevitable, since there’s been at least 5 mass extinctions in Earth’s history that we know of.

The question is a matter of – do humans want as long a run as the dinosaurs, or are humans the comet? Short lived with a trail of destruction in our wake.

Mass extinctions rather neatly show that there’s no omnipotent god. Or, at least, not one that is remotely concerned with mere humans and what we individually do or not do with our genitals.

But the question is can we really be good without a god to guide us?

Given the public response to the mass disaster crisis in Japan – astonishing civil order, lack of looting and sharing of resources even when it means making du with less so that everyone has at least some – yes.

Clearly, we can not only be good without god – we can behave extraordinarily well without the idea of a deity.

2 thoughts on “But Are Things Really Permissable?

  1. I’ve always been able to make leaps in logic or problem solving and land in the correct place.

    These days, I’ve been experiencing very large leaps into seemingly unconnected territory – but am able to reverse engineer back to where I started from.

    It’s really not just Kevin Bacon that’s 6 degrees from everyone else – but rather anything is able to be connected to anything else in a very few connections.

    More often than not, it the unintended consequences that connect.

    Saving lives seems like a good thing, until you factor in the quality of those lives against the environmental impact against the lives of future generations.

    My other rant is fair trade – it sounds good, but those deals were negotiated in the 70s and did not account for market increases – so every producer who signed on is making less money than their counterparts who stuck with market values.

    Birkenstocks are lovely hippie and lesbian footwear -but are made of leather and cork – the first environmentally intensive to produce and the latter is endangered.

    Whenever I consider supporting a cause I look first to the group supporting it – if it’s any homogeneous group, then I step back to consider their motive – perhaps the cause is just, but their reason is not.

    I was disappointed some years ago in Ms. Magazine’s feminist porn debate – 6 feminists all arguing over who has the better reason to be anti-porn. That was disappointing – it should have been 3 against and 3 for porn – Susan Bright (aka Suzie Sexspert), Annie Sprinkle and Nina Hartley would have been excellent on the pro side.

  2. Wow. What a rant. Thought you’d gone off course for a while there, but you brought it all back home. Much to think about, and much to discuss. Do we ignore infant mortality because saving children is pointless? Doesn’t feel moral to me. But I sure agree that overpopulation is the big problem. China seems to be the only country that could get a handle on this with their one child policy. We could never do that in a Western democracy. And it’s going to cause great lumps in the demographic of China, and lots of problems as the population ages.
    I sure agree with you about the infuriating claim that we can’t have morality without God.
    Years ago I was talking to a neighbour and gave the opinion that most laws are not necessary for most people. “If there were no law against murder, that wouldn’t mean that I would murder anybody,” I said. He replied, “Oh, I would. I’d have a whole list.” And I’m afraid he might have been serious. Maybe for him, he needs an external authority for his morality. Scary thought, because the morality imposed by a belief in God is, as you so rightly point out, incredibly variable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s