PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 07. Vox gets vile, again. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/vox_gets_vile_again/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Vox gets vile, again
Oh, jeez. Now Vox Day is making excuses for rape.
Actually, he's making a very convoluted argument that rape is only evil if the woman is chaste and Christian. Being pagan or Muslim means you don't get to complain about rape, nor can you protest if you have had sex outside of marriage.
To put it more clearly [Vox Day? Clear? Heh.], if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.
I find Vox Day to be a thoroughly creepy and amoral creature, one I wouldn't trust within a thousand yards of my female relatives. I think he's twisted and insane, and hope he remains a fanatical Christian—the only thing that's keeping him on a leash seems to be his belief in a punitive deity.
He has this bizarre notion that atheists are necessarily amoral themselves, based on fallacious assumptions about how people operate when they aren't under the illusionary thumb of a god:
And while "might makes right" is the true essence of atheist amorality, it is not exactly the most convincing means of attempting to assert the moral evil of the rapist. As for Utilitarians in a demographically declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the contrary.
This is so wrong. Most atheists don't base their morality on "might makes right"; it's based on the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…an idea that's older than Christianity. I do not rape because I would not want to be raped, and I have empathy for other human beings.
Empathy is a very human thing, and if I had to, I could even rationalize it biologically as an extremely useful capacity for individuals living in social groups. I don't have any problem justifying morality on utilitarian grounds, either.
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.
Posted by PZ Myers on 12/07 at 05:32 PM
Godlessness • Politics • Rethuglicans • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Godlessness • Politics • Rethuglicans • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
"Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins."
Agnostic to Vox: talk to an informed person about the concept of 'mortal sin'.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 05:46 PM -
"And while 'might makes right' is the true essence of atheist amorality"
"the only thing that's keeping him on a leash seems to be his belief in a punitive deity."
Whose morality seems to be "might makes right"?#: Posted by on 12/07 at 05:56 PM -
Paying attention to someone who is obviously just acting out only strokes their ego, ya know. 'Nuff said.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 05:59 PM
-
I think that there are a lot of folks who hold to a religious creed because they think they'd be monsters without it - and most of them are wrong. They're just folks, with good ideas as well as bad, and an exaggerated sense of their potential depravity. A creed that didn't feed their fears would let them function about as well as anyone.
Now someone who can construct an argument like Vox Day may very well need the extra constraints.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:05 PM -
As further evidence of his misogyny, VD also is on record as thinking that women shouldn't have the vote. I'm sure he has some very intelligent, Christian reason for thinking this.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:13 PM
-
I think he's twisted and insane, and hope he remains a fanatical Christian—the only thing that's keeping him on a leash seems to be his belief in a punitive deity.
Yeah, that's the same thing I point out to eanyone who, upon learning of my lack of belief in God, asks: "Well, then, what keeps you from robbing a bank or killing yourself?"
Creepy bastards. I'm going to start keeping the FBI on speed-dial.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:21 PM -
While I concur on the creepi-creepiness of Vox Day, I really do think that "Well, then, what keeps you from robbing a bank or killing yourself?" is a valid question for an ignorant Christian to ask an atheist. Their moral system is based on their god. If they have no other experience with other moral systems, then they really don't know what your morals could be based on. They're just asking what your moral system is. It doesn't occur to them that the Golden Rule isn't a purely Christian precept. But this requires quite a bit of ignorance, and Vox Day has no excuse to be ignorant.
On the other hand, there are a lot of informed Christians who think that naturalistic moral systems necessarily fail compared to Christian morals. Usually this is based on the line of argument that "might makes right, and God is almighty, QED." I presume this is pretty much where Vox Day stands. And so it's kind of funny that he would criticize "might makes right" as an atheistic morality, when he really believes the same thing. -
Vox Day is a genuine sicko, but he's not unique.
There are more than few self-identifying "Christian" blogs where you can encounter folks like Vox who, if you ask simple questions about the depths of their fanaticism, will admit that if it weren't for their belief in eternal hell, they would blow your brains out.
Praise Jesus, I guess.
Let's face it. A greater percentage of the people who cheered when we bombed the shit out of Baghdad were evangelical Christians versus the percentage of people who marched against the war.
Does that say something about evangelical Christians as a group?
Of course it fucking does. Anybody who claims otherwise is living in denial.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:42 PM -
pdf
" I really do think that "Well, then, what keeps you from robbing a bank or killing yourself?" is a valid question for an ignorant Christian to ask an atheist."
Um, sure, except most questions about any topic are valid from the perspective of an ignorant person, regardless of their religion.
I agree with you that Vox Day has less excuses than your average high school dropout from rural Kentucky who gets all his information from MSNBC.
Vox Day has no excuses, frankly. He's willfully morphed himself into a diseased horse's rectum.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:47 PM -
"I don't have any problem justifying morality on utilitarian grounds, either."
Nope. Last I heard, in zero sum repeated games 'tit-for-tat' is a good strategy. Of course, many social interactions are not close to zero sum and repeated, but I can imagine that enough are that it is a good start if you don't know enough about the certain 'game' you participate in.
"I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths."
From evil psychopat to fundie sociopath, not much improvement.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 06:50 PM -
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths
aw c'mon dr.myers...we can't have our favorite outspoken atheist go all soft in the head like that.
i suspect a theistic framework of morality would be as ineffective a deterrant as abstinence-only contraception...else religions wouldn't have to invent sin-absolving techniques like messiahs and hail-marys in order to stay in business -
Minor nit pick with Vox Day (cause I can't stomach the rest...)
"Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins."
My 12 years of Roman Catholic schooling says otherwise... Sins are venial (sp?) or mortal.
Still remember the classic debate on the nature of sin, and level there of, at 8 years old. (e.g. If I forgot it was Friday and ate the hot dog and the remembered afterword.)
Oh wait, fogot... R.C. isn't really a christian religion is it? (Unless you need their votes.)
sigh...#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:00 PM -
I prefer the less-invasive Silver rule: "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." The Golden rule has given rise to lots of badly-formed altruism.
Not that I am never altruistic; I just don't kid myself about why.
Bottom line, I am a (Scary! Ooga-Booga!) atheist and I still have a moral framework within which I make such decisions. Some assembly required, no god required. It always bugs me when religious people don't even try to imagine a morality other than one based on fear.#: Posted by decrepitoldfool on 12/07 at 07:15 PM -
Literal shackles for psychopaths work better than religious ones.
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 12/07 at 07:19 PM
-
We evolved morality, biologically and culturally, like we evolved everything else.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:39 PM
-
women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful
I got lost in that bit.
1. Is internal consent about forgetting to tell the man yes or no at all? Or saying no and meaning yes (or vice versa)? Or is it about different types of sexual practice? Or what?
2. Is traditional Western morality the one where you shoot the Indians, steal their land and can rape their squaws if you want to? OK I didn't actually think that the first time round! But I didn't know if it meant Christianity being distasteful to Islam, Hindu and Chinese people and perhaps Russians. Or whether VD was talking about some fantasy version of California hippy free love being distasteful to some Christians (Christianity being really a middle-eastern rather than western tradition). Or that the amount of equality which traditionally existed in some celtic (or other pagan) tribes was offensive to the invading Christians. Or that cutting out people's hearts and tossing the bodies aside or burying them under buildings was offensive to the rampaging Christian spaniards.
Are those original terms standard code of some sort to you Americans; so that you all know what they mean, without a translation guide or recourse to any basis in reality.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:46 PM -
"Nope. Last I heard, in zero sum repeated games 'tit-for-tat' is a good strategy."
If I remember my game theory right (it's been a while), tit-for-tat was made famous as the solution for iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, a non-zero sum game. Additionally, tit-for-tat is morality. It says that I will cooperate until you screw me. Then, I will retaliate. Afterwards, I will quickly forgive and cooperate again until you screw me again. That's pretty much standard morality as I understand it. Do I not remember this correctly? I think that PZ has an excellent shot at providing evidence for the utility of morality (not that he'd be the first).#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:48 PM -
Once more, with feeling:
Ted "Theodore" Beale is batshit crazy. He's a complete fucking loon. The difference between Vox and your average schizophrenic is that at least when they're on the right medication, the schizophrenic realizes the voices aren't real.
If not for God, Vox would be an active psychopath, instead of just the fantasizing psychopath he is. So...I guess, score one for religion. Then again, if not for God, Ted "Theodore" Beale would've challenged the wrong guy (or gal) at the wrong time, and he'd be dead now. So I guess it's a wash.
Vox dementum est Vox Day.#: Posted by Jeff Fecke on 12/07 at 07:54 PM - Gee, I wonder how long before he refers to PZ as "pharyngirla," his usual favorite insult to be calling someone a "girl."
-
SEF, i think he seems to be arguing that since we base our governmental systems and the moral basis of our judicial systems on tacit consent, that tacit consent should also apply to inter-personal relationships. That does seem to rather ignore the reasons for introducing the notion of tacit consent in the first place - since in inter-personal relationships, we should always be able to give informed, explicit consent barring something inhibiting our ability to reason or scommunicate. I don't know what could possibly do that though, it's not like anyone ever gets too drunk to speak, right?
oh well, nothing new in chauvinism masquerading as informed opinion... -
VD's whole debating style seems to be to create cartoonish fantasy characterizations of all of his 'enemies', and then to attack these characterizations. In addition to his predictable notion that nonreligious people can of course not possess anything like morality, check out where he zings through his litany of stereotypes of other religions. Since he has to convince people that only his brand of Western Protestant Christianity is valid, he comes up with some truly ludicrous thumbnail characterizations of nonwestern religions that look like they came out of some David Limbaugh book he read.
This witlessness would be bad enough, but then juxtapose it with his incredibly pompous writing style and his utter conviction that every piece of nonsense he pulls out of his ass is a timeless eternal truth. It's really a repellent, depressing combination.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:24 PM -
Can we stop paying attention to Vox Day? Its not like we write a rebuttal and grant a link everytime someone posts something on StormFront.
it's based on the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Hmm, even the GR seems oversimplified to me. Not all people want to be treated the same way as everybody else, e.g. someone who likes loud heavy metal music at all hours might have neighbors that feel differently. Maybe "greatest good for the greatest number" is better. But then how do we define what's "good"? Subjective reports might work, but even simplified as such, that's pretty weak. Subjective reports tell us that Nigerians are happier than Scandinavians but nevertheless we work to make the conditions of the former like those of the latter and not vice versa.
When it gets right down to it, ethical reasoning is much more challenging, broader, complex, and subtle than anything found in crude, cruel* and ancient religious texts or especially the paradoxical assertions of modern apologists based on the Euthyphro contradiction.
Here's Michael Martin with more:
"Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape (1997)
Michael Martin"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin
* Jesus Christ was a monster not a moral philosopher. How else to describe someone who threatens "eternal suffering" to those who don't believe in his insulting fairytale assertions about his own "God"hood?#: Posted by Jason Malloy on 12/07 at 08:51 PM -
What everyone has said, plus Theodore's arguement that rape is a property crime at best. If property is held in common as it is in godless communist America, then it's no crime at all. Ladies, run, don't walk, from any man who expresses such an opinion. (preferably after giving him a swift kick where his balls would be if he had any.)
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:53 PM
-
I'd be interested to see his actual arguments in support of rape from a Kantian or Utilitarian perspective, does anyone happen to have a link to any?
It strikes me that rape is actually the archetypical violation of the second formulation of the categorical imperitive, that man is an end in himself and is not to be used as a means in other people's schemes. How can rape be anything other than the use of a victim for the satisfaction of the rapist?
Anyhow, I'm pretty new to all of this, maybe I'm missing some strand of his argument. -
Somehow, after hearing tonight's NPR story on Iraqi honor killings, this all seems of a point.
Hideous. Absolutely hideous.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:04 PM -
Can we stop paying attention to Vox Day? Its not like we write a rebuttal and grant a link everytime someone posts something on StormFront.
Hey, I do. Really.
No, actually, even I, tireless rebutter of Holocaust denial that I am, don't go that far, but your analogy made me chuckle.
Of course, one of these days, Vox is going to get a visit from the Hitler Zombie. There's certainly enough material there.
-
Great white post a real email address so we can send you props when you make a great post ya bastid.
> Of course it fucking does. Anybody who claims otherwise is living in denial.
Anyway, this was gold.#: Posted by Federico Contreras on 12/07 at 09:28 PM -
I don't want to believe it. But there it is. And the even worse news is: Other psychos will go along with ....this....thing.
Next time a 'Believer' asks you why you don't rob banks and rape and pilage, etc. 'cause you don't believe in a God, whip this on them.
"Are you saying that without God, you'd be robbing banks, raping, pilaging, etc.?"
And when they respond in horror: "Of course not."
Give them this: "Then why, exactly, do you need the extra step to morality that you call God?" "In fact, who told you that you were immoral in the first place? Some church authority, I bet."#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:35 PM -
й Gee, I wonder how long before he refers to PZ as "pharyngirla," his usual favorite insult to be calling someone a "girl." й
Jeez, going to VD and actually reading his tripe would give me an ulcer. Seriously.#: Posted by Federico Contreras on 12/07 at 09:57 PM -
Jason Malloy
"Jesus Christ was a monster not a moral philosopher. How else to describe someone who threatens "eternal suffering" to those who don't believe in his insulting fairytale assertions about his own "God"hood?"
Sometimes I think that the problem was back in those days life sucked so hard that in order to scare people you had to create a really nasty version of hell. So Jesus, or whoever put words in his mouth later, was just going with the times.
Then later when things got better, hell became equivalent earth today. Lots of Christians say that now -- we are in hell. Frankly, it's not too bad. There's a lot of nice places along the West Coast and Kuaui is pretty nice. I wouldn't mind pursuing the rock star angle next time around.
By the way, Jason, if a red pick-up truck tailgaits you, don't pull over. Just keep driving.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:58 PM -
Lots of Christians say that now -- we are in hell.
You mean gnostics?
In any case, I for one would appreciate it if I never had to see another post about VD. His writing, even excerpted, makes me literally ill -- and I've spent a lot of time going through the books and archives of the more radical of the radical right, so I'm inoculated to some pretty vile stuff. This guy, though, he makes Stormfront look like a bunch of Habermas-reading grad students.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 10:41 PM -
I noticed that nowhere in VDs (gotta love those initials) rant does the word conscience appear. The hallmark of a psychopath is the utter lack of a conscience. If anything holds a psychopath in check, it is shame. You can very effectively hide shame by professing religion. IIRC,the BTK killer was a prominant member of a local church. So was Canadas serial child killer Clifford Olson.
I think VD is a right wing pseud. He must be advancing his career by being outrageous. I hope so, God, I hope so.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 10:49 PM -
The self-righteous believers who think that non-believers are without morals apparently operate under a different version of the Golden Rule: "The only sin is getting caught."
Since many of us don't believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing deity, we don't worry about god "catching" us so just go around doing all sorts of bad stuff. Hell be damned. -
It is interesting to me—living in such a religion-saturated land—that ethics largely begins exactly where religious authority ends; namely, in the resolution of Euthyphro’s Dilemma: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Modernized and monotheized (if you will), the question is: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
The first horn of the dilemma implies that morality is prior to God and, given his existence, that God is bound by it. Accepting this side of the dilemma makes God irrelevant to moral questions. Consequently, we are free to reason for ourselves about the merits of Kantian ethics, utilitarianism etc., and struggle to do the right thing, by our lights.
The second horn implies that God is prior to morality. Accepting this side of the dilemma involves a accepting a kind of arbitrariness exemplified by Abraham’s choice to sacrifice his son at God’s request. Had an angel not stayed his hand, the divine command theorist must conclude that Abraham would have done the right thing by slaying his son, merely because God demanded it.
There is a phrase for people who hand their ethical reasoning over to arbitrary authority (particularly books inspired by invisible men in the sky): moral retards.#: Posted by Johnny Logic on 12/07 at 11:09 PM -
Ladies, run, don't walk, from any man who expresses such an opinion. (preferably after giving him a swift kick where his balls would be if he had any.)
Actually, I've always heard women should kick attackers in the knees. Hurts just as bad, immobilizes them better, and since it's lower the woman is less likely to fall over.
Some day someone will probably test this on Mr. Day.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 11:11 PM -
Gee, I wonder how long before he refers to PZ as "pharyngirla," his usual favorite insult to be calling someone a "girl."
I believe he's coined the neologism "Pharyngurla" for P.Z. Man, it's like the Algonquin over there, isn't it?#: Posted by on 12/07 at 11:15 PM -
M. L. Green wrote:
Next time a 'Believer' asks you why you don't rob banks and rape and pilage, etc. 'cause you don't believe in a God, whip this on them.
"Are you saying that without God, you'd be robbing banks, raping, pilaging, etc.?"
And when they respond in horror: "Of course not."
Nice thought - though I offer this up from FSTDT:
[Preceded by the question 'Hypothetically, if someone were to show you sufficient proof that it is likely that no deities exist, what would you do?']
"I don't know, I guess I would probably have sex with as many pretty women as possible and cheat on my taxes and few other things that I thought I could get away with without getting caught. I would also try to make as much money as possible by just about any means possible, ie using other people as stepping stones. And just live for immediate gratification." 'Ed', on the website 'Internet Infidels'#: Posted by on 12/08 at 03:03 AM -
I would tend to agree with the people who object to giving this sorry wanker the oxygen of publicity. He's behaving like an insecure child who knows he can get adults' attention by screaming bad words and pulling girls' hair. Time to stop reinforcing this behavior and send him to the naughty step instead?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 03:40 AM
-
In many ways, these guys shed fascinating light on evolutionary psychology, making a mockery of their religious morality.
Adaptationist theory, such as on sexual morality or "TIT FOR TAT" implies that our concepts of good and evil are arbitrary, but once fixed, get inherited by everyone, since we're descended from the same ancestors.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 04:05 AM -
Johnny Logic:
As an example of God's arbitrariness Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is not very apposite - you say 'had an angel not stayed [Abraham's] hand...' - but this is immediately a false premiss. God is the source of all good, and what he wills is good; Abraham proved that he knows this, and his faith is proved justified because the angel stayed his hand. That is, for Abraham to do God's will would have been right in any circumstances, but God's will was not that he should sacrifice his son. (A more important message of this story is how opaque God's will may really be, a message that many fundies seem to miss.) If I'd been advancing your argument, I'd have been more tempted to use the example of Job; the sufferings and deaths inflicted upon his family are far more morally questionable.
Additionally, Xtians don't 'hand their ethical reasoning over to arbitrary authority' (that is, they do not do so as a matter of definition); they turn to God for their sense of morality, and if you accept that 'God is prior to morality' (in your phrase) then He is by definition not arbitrary*. The fact that he doesn't exist has nothing to do with it, at least from a logical point of view, since Xtians do believe. (This is not to say logical arguments do not exist to demonstrate that such faith is non-rational, but the argument you presented does not lead to that conclusion.)
Indeed, the very concept of 'ethical reasoning' begs the question: if one strarts from the premiss that all morality derives from God, morality is not subject to reasoning (in the sense of reasoning over what constitutes right and wrong, at least, though moral decisions may be fraught even with an absolute moral authority). Devoting rational thought to what constitutes good is thus taking God's role unto oneself - one should instead pray for guidance. Failing to engage with moral dilemmas would be moral retardation if one did not believe in God; however, from the perspective of a believer God exists and so any action compliant with that reality is logically consistent.
I am probably totally failing to explain myself here, but I'm very bored and am stuck in the office with no work to do.
*Unless, of course, you take the view that God is prior to morality but not himself 'good' - a view which has fallen out of fashion since the Gnostics and whgich would certainly cause a Fundie's piss to freeze in his/her urethra.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 04:06 AM -
Is traditional Western morality the one where you shoot the Indians, steal their land and can rape their squaws if you want to?
Yes.
As for Utilitarians in a demographically declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the contrary.
From a utilitarian perspective, the psychological damange done to a rape victim far outweighs the gratification given to the rapist. From a categorical perspective, rape hurts someone, treating her as a means to an end, and is thus immoral. -
For essays like his, does his argument hold up if run through a Hofstadter 'Personpaper' test? Rotate it 90 degrees and see if it still holds up...
\/ox discusses only rape by men of women. But if a man is willing to commit a sexual sin-- onanism, say-- is his moral offense no less than that of a man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes him?
Christianity doesn't have a hierarchy of sin, thus the bit about hatred in the heart being identical to killing in G*d's eyes. So a dying pedestrian cursing the drunk driver who hit that pedestrian is showing a moral offense at least as great as that of the driver's. Worse if the drunk driver had no intention of killing, but the pedestrian strongly hates the driver. (Unless, perhaps, the drunk driver was driving to a tryst? There is no hierarchy but these sins are additive, no?)
If a married man pretends to be single and has an affair with a single man who's pretending to be a woman, can that adulterer be raped? For if he consented to have adulterous sex with the 'woman,' is his sin any less because the other party also sinned?
And do crimes exist if Christianity doesn't mention them? All those property damage clauses of Hammurabi that Christ never mentions... can I purposefully flood my neighbor's field, if my neighbor is Christian? How about usary? Can I steal from my neighbor if I know that the neighbor commits the moral offense of loving money?
Are religions additive? Is a crime more crimeful, a sin more sinful, if multiple religions condemn it?
At any rate, its an odd sort of love VeeD is displaying: as we're none of us without sin we all get to cast stones? Or only Christians get to cast stones?#: Posted by on 12/08 at 05:06 AM -
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.
Isn't this exactly why organised religion was formed, by accident if not by design? It assumes the worst about everyone.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:50 AM -
Orac says: " Gee, I wonder how long before he refers to PZ as "pharyngirla," his usual favorite insult to be calling someone a "girl." "
He already has, frequently referring to PZ as 'Pharyngula'.
Vox also seems to believe that even us atheists, agnostics, etc who aren't out committing violent crimes are guilty of 'moral parasitism', appropriating our moral behavior codes from some form of theology. Therefore, I guess he must be some form of technology parasite, unashamedly using 'the wheel' invented by pagans. Sigh#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:59 AM -
"Are you saying that without God, you'd be robbing banks, raping, pilaging, etc.?"
And when they respond in horror: "Of course not."
I'm afraid, however, that many fundies would reply "of course I would rape and rob banks of there was no God".
Many religious people, like Vox, have a very weak moral character.
Morality is a tricky thing though, I don't think the Golden Rule really covers it all.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:04 AM -
outeast,
As an example of God's arbitrariness Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is not very apposite - you say 'had an angel not stayed [Abraham's] hand...' - but this is immediately a false premiss. God is the source of all good, and what he wills is good; Abraham proved that he knows this, and his faith is proved justified because the angel stayed his hand. That is, for Abraham to do God's will would have been right in any circumstances, but God's will was not that he should sacrifice his son. (A more important message of this story is how opaque God's will may really be, a message that many fundies seem to miss.) If I'd been advancing your argument, I'd have been more tempted to use the example of Job; the sufferings and deaths inflicted upon his family are far more morally questionable.
The quoted section above misses the point of the dilemma.
If what is good is merely what god wills, then why couldn’t have God willed that Abraham slay his son. God wouldn’t allow it? Why? Does Abraham have a sense of good beyond what he is commanded? For Abraham to believe with certainty that God is good, knowing that killing his son is wrong and acting like he would sacrifice him, safe in his knowledge that God cannot command it misses the point. This line of reasoning depends upon independent knowledge of what is good, thus it succumbs to the second horn of the dilemma.
To avoid this, one must accept that God’s authority is the ultimate arbiter of good, whether it means crashing into buildings with planes or feeding the poor in South America. This is an abdication of independent thought that becomes an epistemological puzzle: How can I know the true commands of God?
Devoting rational thought to what constitutes good is thus taking God's role unto oneself - one should instead pray for guidance. Failing to engage with moral dilemmas would be moral retardation if one did not believe in God; however, from the perspective of a believer God exists and so any action compliant with that reality is logically consistent.
Logical consistency is a poor virtue, indeed. As for prayer, is notoriously unreliable; for the Lafferty brothers, it guided them to kill.#: Posted by Johnny Logic on 12/08 at 09:33 AM -
Men can be raped too, and I hope he applies the same standard to them.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:34 AM
-
My 12 years of Roman Catholic schooling says otherwise... Sins are venial (sp?) or mortal.
The King James also says otherwise, what with Jesus saying some variation of "All sins can be forgiven except talking smack about the Holy Spirit" in three different gospels and all. But hey, next to Vox, what does Jesus know?#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:42 AM -
In my ethical system, stating that "rape is wrong" is true by definition of "rape" and "wrong", just like "theft is wrong" and "murder is wrong". (I've been told that this is what makes the ten commandments in the original Hebrew to be unhelpful: they do not state "do not kill", but "do not murder".) This is because "rape" just means "unpermitted sexual contact of another". (It also assumes the axiom that whatever is not to whatever degree forbidden [*] is permitted, I might add.)
The morally interesting situation is determining how and when consent occurs, and there life is messy indeed. (Which is not to say that rape is not a horrendous event.)
([*] There's a way in which my ethical system relies on a hierarachy and a recognition that "is right" or "is good" comes in degrees beyond the usual two, much as my philosophy of logic admits degrees of truth. There is a connection, too, which I'll skip here.
)
#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 12/08 at 09:52 AM -
VD says: Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.
Yikes! No wonder it has failed to naturally explain the universe and has fueled genocidal means of tribal expansion throughout the centuries.
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.
Brilliant PZ! -
Divine Command theorists scare me. If I bump into one who admits that the only thing stopping him from going berserk is belief in a punitive deity, I think I'll call him what he is: A monster.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:19 AM
-
Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.
I swear to God, the man doesn't know his own beliefs, nevermind the ridiculous attributes he attaches to words he clearly doesn't begin to understand (Utilitarians, atheist, moral relativist, etc.)
As for Utilitarians in a demographically declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the contrary.
Really, I'd like to see him try. And I love how he claims that Judeo-Christian belief is clear cut and somehow more obviously justified than other forms of morality. I genuinely think that in Vox's case he's trying to show (optimism stops me from believing his stated and implied ethics actually belong to him,) that it is only fear of God that keeps him in line. The entire structure of a ridiculous proportion of his arguments centre around it.
One of the few things more disturbing than Vox Day is his writing ability. God knows how people like him get in the limelight.
-The Rev. Schmitt.#: Posted by The Rev. Schmitt. on 12/08 at 10:33 AM -
Actually, I knew a guy once who was a Seventh Day Adventist and whenever he used to get upset he'd say something along the lines of "If I didn't believe in Jesus I would go completely insane and murder any one I saw" or "you'd better hope I don't forget about Jesus, or else".
Yep, this guy was nuts.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:33 AM -
Well, damn, you can apply Vox's vile attitude to money and robbery, too. "If someone gives their money away to charity whenever they feel like it, then they can't get upset when someone robs them. That person just wanted some of their charity. And look at how they were dressed! Anyone wearing a good suit and a good watch is just asking for it—showing off their money like that!"
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:39 AM
-
"They're probably just socialists, too—you know they ain't got no morals!"
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:44 AM
-
I've read Vox's blog a few times, it's pretty ridiculous stuff. Many of the posters there are lunatics as well.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:48 AM
-
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.
A shackle? Or an outlet, a lot of times.#: Posted by JavaElemental on 12/08 at 10:52 AM -
'Agnostic to Vox: talk to an informed person about the concept of 'mortal sin'.'
BUT this is an idea to a specific sect of the religion. So yes your correct in a kinda sorta way but the concept of sin without levels is not really inherent to Christianity and has no biblical basis.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:57 AM -
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.
If you read James Hogg's Confessions of a Justified Sinner, you won't even see that virtue anymore:
http://tinyurl.com/asxat
I read somewhere that "James Hogg" is a pseudonym for philosopher William Godwin, but I can't remember where I saw the reference.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 11:46 AM -
A Christian libertarian? I didn't know that such beings exist. In Finland, almost every libertarian is an atheist.
#: Posted by Mikko Sandt on 12/08 at 12:55 PM
-
A Christian libertarian? I didn't know that such beings exist. In Finland, almost every libertarian is an atheist.
The term has gotten very watered down in recent years in America. Nowadays you see a lot of young, male, conservative Christians who call themselves 'libertarians' because they think it sounds hipper than calling themselves conservatives.
Basically, I think the term is being picked up by anyone who wants to abolish taxes and social spending, regardless of whatever other beliefs they hold. Vox Day seems to be a theocratic libertarian -- this appears to mean that he wants taxes and social spending abolished, but he still wants Fundamentalist Christian principles to be mandated into law. So the social-laissez faire aspect of libertarianism goes out the window.
Seems rather a perversion of 'libertarian' to me, but what are you gonna do?#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:42 PM -
We could even speculate that the guy is just transfering a secret wish to rape and doesn´t do it only because he believes that "might is right" and that this god guy will come and smite him for good.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:10 PM
-
The Morality of Carjacking
...
The criminality of carjacking in this country is beyond question, but as I have pointed out with regard to other matters, legality is not morality. It is illegal to drive across an intersection when a specific light is red, but this is not an immoral act. It is immoral to seduce your friend's wife in his car, but it is not illegal. Furthermore, there are no shortage of countries where carjacking is not only legal, but an established policy of the government authority, so the criminal aspect is obviously irrelevant with regard to questioning the fundamental morality or immorality of the act.
But which morality? The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – carjacking is a sin, a willful pollution of a car that rightly belongs to God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of carjacking to be evil and justly holding the carjacker accountable. But this ethic does not offer a blanket excuse to victims, near victims and would-be victims either, since the element of consent – which today draws the dividing line between carpooling and carjacking – can also provide a contrarian condemnation of the driver's own actions.
(Here one must note the intellectual poverty of the carjacking mythologists. If carjacking concerns power, not location, then how is it possible for the simple absence, or worse, withdrawal, of consent to immediately transform a "carpool carjacking" situation from an inherently locational one to one where location plays no role at all?)
To put it more clearly, if a driver consents to casual carpooling, the driver is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the rider who engages in casual carpooling with the driver, or by the rider who, in the absence of such consent, carjacks the driver. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the driver who is not entertaining the possibility of carpooling with a rider and is subsequently carjacked can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that driver who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a driver's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 05:06 PM -
"tit-for-tat was made famous as the solution for iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, a non-zero sum game."
Yes, of course, thank you Shygetz! I misremembered, maybe because I have no practise as a prisoner.
Wikipedia has a nice article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma ). Strategies that topscores are nice, retaliating, forgiving and nonenvious. 'tit-for-tat with forgiveness' was the best deterministic strategy for single players. (You cooperate around 1-5 % of the times you are cheated, to break cycles of cheating.)
"pretty much standard morality as I understand it."
Umm, morality is the codification of concepts and beliefs on right or wrong, or the conformity to that codification. Yep, it seems pretty standard behaviour when you describe it, so it should be standard morality. So you are saying that it isn't only good theory but good practise as well?!
As an aside, I enjoyed decrepits description of a 'Silver Rule' but I think the tit-for-tat version of the 'Golden Rule' is stronger.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 07:32 PM -
BUT this is an idea to a specific sect of the religion. So yes your correct in a kinda sorta way but the concept of sin without levels is not really inherent to Christianity and has no biblical basis.
I don't agree. True, the idea of venial and mortal sin is unique to Catholicism, but there are biblical verses supporting the idea of some kind of hierarchy of punishment. Matthew 10:14-15:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
If all sins are equally serious, then how could anyone have it worse in the afterlife than Sodom and Gomorrah will? -
I have to wonder how serious Vox Day really is about some of his more bizarre claims; I wonder if he is trolling, hoping to make people indignant at him just so he can snicker at how irrational they are.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 05:14 PM
- Vox Day is actually Scott Adams?