”There is nothing we are supposed to do, and there's no one we have to obey. We're free!It’s all because of evolution, you know:
"What Smith and Fish are doing is asking a stupid question — where are the Orders of the Cosmic Dictator? — and failing to note that there seems to be no evidence of a cosmic dictator, and his orders are merely pretenses put up by institutionalized frauds. And then they run about in circles, flailing their arms and screaming at the people who point out that there are no orders. The problem, they think, is secularists who explain the nonexistence of supernatural agents, not the multitude of religionists who all tell us different things we're supposed to do and name different entities behind our instructions.
"There's a very Darwinian view of the universe that these two have failed to recognize. There is no destination. There are only local, short-term responses to the environment, and the idea of a direction is an illusion that can only be seen retroactively. There is no "ought". There is no "should". There is no overmind with a plan for you. Trying to ask where the rules are just tells everyone that you don't understand the game, and worse, deciding that there must be rules and inventing them and demanding that we all follow them or we betray our cosmic purpose means that you've completely lost it.
"No rules. No purpose. Got it?”
”However, that doesn't mean that patterns won't emerge. A Darwinian world "rewards" stable replicators with greater representation in future generations. It's still not a purpose, it's a consequence of a lack of overarching purpose. Procreators find their genes propagated into the next generation; it's not because God wants it so, or because Nature says you're supposed to do it, it's because the process itself happens to yield more possessors of the property than individuals who lack the property.
"Likewise for other complicated or abstract institutions. The cultures that will exist a century from now will be the cultures that avoid melting down or blowing up. That's not destiny or the product of divine guidance, it's simply a self-evident truism. There is no "should" that even says you should be a member of a culture that will persist into the next century: you are free to run off to a California commune, grow sinsemilla, and have gay or prophylactically controlled orgies until your tribe grays and dies out. Or you can join the Shakers and excel in craftsmanship and celibacy and quiet worship of a deity until your tribe grays and dies out. The universe does not freaking care.”
PZ eloquently makes the case for Atheist amorality. Not long ago, PZ was declaring that Atheists were "Good". Well, if amorality equals Good, then they really are all winners by their own definition.
2 comments:
This post is in stark contrast with your usual thoughtfulness (even though I disagree with you often). Atheists are not just atheists; just because atheism doesn't provide moral guidelines does not mean those guidelines don't exist.
Many atheists are also humanists. If you accept PZ's explanation of "atheistic morality" (ie. there is none), then you must also accept that such people are made up of more than simple disbelief in a deity.
Come on...
Whateverman, when you disagree with me, why not tell me about it so we can discuss it? I’m open to all criticism, so long as it is civil.
The intent of the post was to illuminate PZ’s internal contradiction, claiming first that Atheists are moral, then claiming that there is no such thing as morality.
Whateverman said,
“Atheists are not just atheists; just because atheism doesn't provide moral guidelines does not mean those guidelines don't exist.”
If by saying that Atheists are not just Atheists, I presume you are saying that their worldview is predicated on something other than Atheism. I also presume that would be evolution and/or Humanism, since Judeo-Christianity is rejected as a source of Truth. It is true that some Atheists live according to Judeo-Christian values, having stolen the values while rejecting any basis for their substance, placing them in a position of both moral flexibility and intellectual dishonesty.
The question remains, are those guidelines which Atheists claim certain or are they relative? Are they an evolutionarily convenient feature of “getting along with others”, or are they really the Right Thing To Do?
If, as PZ maintains, there is no source for such a thing as morality, then behaviors that are deemed “moral” or “immoral” are purely relative to the cultural situation and getting along with others – whatever that actually means at the time. And “getting along with others” can be totally Consequentialist, i.e. morality-free.
So if those guidelines do exist, what is the source, the force, and the impetus to conform to them?
Whateverman also said,
” Many atheists are also humanists. If you accept PZ's explanation of "atheistic morality" (ie. there is none), then you must also accept that such people are made up of more than simple disbelief in a deity.”
Certainly, I absolutely do accept that. I accept that Atheists believe in things they do not admit, and the Humanist Manifestos are a prime example of that. The first Manifesto is the basis for secular totalitarian socialism, which is concealed deeper and deeper in the increasingly camouflaged verbiage of the succeeding two Manifestos. Both PZ and Massimo have expressed dismay at the “conservatism” of Obama and his Congress.
Yes, absolutely, I do accept that Atheism commonly contains inherent agendas for elitist control of the “herd”, as propounded by Nietzsche, Comte, and Dewey, et al., and heavily implied by the elitism of PZ, Massimo, Dawkins and so forth. These are not necessary conditions for Atheism, but they are very frequent epiphenomona.
Do all Atheists believe in elitist Humanism? Probably not all, especially the most ignorant and least immersed in Atheology. But a great many do.
Post a Comment