Logical Morality
I deleted my Google+ and Youtube account because due to Google tying in G+ and Youtube at one point, I wound up with two G+ and youtube accounts. G+ is redundant anyway when I have a blog and I have no need for socializing on G+ or Facebook. I guess I still maintain my hermitic nature even online. Anyway, here's an entry for some time in February that I think is still pretty relevant to my present thoughts.
"Morality is an authority that's derived from logic. I see logic as the beautiful, elegant and simple machine code where the authority of the messy, complicated high-level code of morality is derived. Sometimes we have bugs in the system as largely a consequence of complicated, bloated and unchecked code. Things may still work fine but the system becomes more quirky. This, to me, is what religion has become. I think a lot of people see this more and more each day. They feel something deep down within themselves that something is wrong with it, they just can't place a finger on it but they still say half-heartedly tend to that belief.
It's like most high-level operating systems that've become bloated and inefficient, religion has strayed far from its primal roots of simple and elegant microkernel-based design. You know there's something there that has some validity and truth in its purpose, but it's way too buggy to feel coherent and true to purpose. So in that sense, I still run a multi-OS system. There's validity in them all, some purpose and truth, but they've become feature-bloated monsters and to anyone who likes simple and elegant design and function, it's in proper need of a complete re-write or deprecation altogether and replaced by more fitting and elegant code.
As the video demonstrates from Game Theory, tit-for-tat behavior is generally most efficient for survival. If you ask me, this is the logic most religion is based on. Some Christians may mention "turn the other cheek" but many even argue about the interpretation of this and even if it alludes to forgiveness in theory, but in practice it doesn't seem to work well because you have "cheaters" who take advantage of this. As my belief, very tolerant people and societies are short lived due to cheaters taking advantage and diluting the tolerant attitudes of its hosts as well as very intolerant people and societies as we see in societies ruled by tyrants. Ambitiousness makes one a target, especially if going against the freedoms of others. Of course, that also plays into a lot of my political views, always striving for a good balance in-between.
You'd think that I think a lot about religion and morality as much as I write about it but I've largely disassociated myself from thinking about it much in the past year or two. But I always feel my thought process is under attack, if not by others but myself also. This weekend was another reminder of this as I had a couple Baptists come to my door to try to "save" me before I had my morning coffee, not a great time for me so I spared few expenses in trying to be agreeable. Besides lots of circular logic, basically saying words in the bible are true because the bible is true, they gave me the old "what do you have to lose" argument, Pascal's Wager (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager). I replied firstly that one can't believe until convinced to believe. If the "you'll go to our god's hell" argument is used, then belief is purposeless if backed only by threats as it's not true belief or conviction. There's very few gods throughout history who threaten you if you don't believe. As you can see, it works okay for those who worry a lot as I did or those who feel easily intimidated but it's a shallow, purposeless "belief" or at least a shallow way to entice belief.
A second point on that argument is that I get to live a life that's true and free according to the principles I believe in, not according to principles I'm threatened to believe in. Truth in as much as can be attained and freedom to that same degree for all of humanity means a lot to me. To me, the old magic trick of telling someone all is well and your heart is lifted of burden if you just believe in the same god as others do, that may give you a temporary fulfillment like candy does, it doesn't mean it's good for you or others. What feels good to believe in is not necessarily what's best for yourself or society. Anecdotal, of course, but I consider myself to be a better person now than when I believed in a god. If we can go back to the computer analogy, you pull so much mental gymnastics trying to make that code fit within the reality of the situation and try to assert that burden on others and in the end, you have buggy, unkempt, complicated code that you're trying to wrestle.
They also threw the same old fodder I've thrown for years as a Christian and countered as a later atheist like the old argumentum ad populum, aka, because more people believe, that means it's probably true. This is a common and cheap tactic that holds little water. Firstly, more people eat boxed mac 'n cheese than steak or maybe more people drive a Camry than any other car, for instance. It doesn't mean those products are better, just likely more affordable, attainable and so they subsequently become embedded more in the culture so it's taken at face value. Of course, if that tactic doesn't work you then claim it's because of persecution, that way you get to divert the debate, save face and retain, perhaps fuel your convictions by going into defense, or underdog mode.
Another thing we discussed which I fundamentally disagreed with is free will. To me, you have cause --> effect. To them, I'm going to best assume, you have cause --> random variable, "free" decision making, god, or (who knows what people are thinking) --> effect. The "free decision making" aspect is not free but based on less concrete aspects such as neurology, personality, and various internal and external conditions. The "god of the gaps" phrase comes into play here. The more god is replaced with the unknown, the less valid a god seems, at least for theists, not deists. Of course, you could as I did, see the world as deterministic as a theist also, just that that god would be the instigator of the machine, the programmer, so to speak, which I came to find out later that it's a deistic belief. And still some might argue that the universe is deterministic and that we have perceived free will which for all intents and purposes is free will. But when trying to speak objectively about this subject, microscopic perception by the self has little validity compared to a more macroscopic and universal perception.
But in the end, I really don't have issue with anyone's beliefs as long as they don't present a viable threat to civilization and technological advancement. For the most part, it's not beliefs that are threats but the extent to which those beliefs are executed. As an aside, please don't come knocking on my door in the morning before I have my coffee, threatening me that'll I'll go to your version of a hell if I don't convince myself to believe in your god. I've somewhat wasted fifteen years of my life casually studying religion and philosophy, largely around the Abrahamic god and more specifically relating to Christianity. I've given your god plenty of time and commitment to convince me and at one point very early on, I thought I was but it didn't stand up to even casual questioning. When you're a Christian, you're sometimes deemed to have little "faith" if you dare question so that's one way they try to keep you locked into it. There's been thousands of gods throughout history. I'm tired of the arrogance of people thinking their god deserves so much more time and attention. And as a result of the arrogance and hyper-execution of religion, in some parts of the world you can't run for office if you don't believe in a god, even in the "free world". In other parts, if you don't follow their religion of peace, you're executed or tortured. Another case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, as some theists would put it. You get so lost in the peace you think you're standing for that you become the monster you fight, paraphrasing Nietzsche there. But who does fight for what they think is wrong for them to fight for? I failed to find the quote or source but I'll paraphrase, "What man goes to war thinking god isn't on their side?". We all fight for what we think should be.
Religious people don't have a monopoly on morality as they sometimes think. You should always ask yourself, is it right because it feels right or feels good, or is there some truth I'm missing because I'm following feelings more than a more macroscopic and objective logic? And is this truth objective because it feels like it connects to something more objective, what some would call a god or spirit, or does this really have tangible and quantitative objectivity that stands up to reason? Sometimes I still have the same spiritual feelings I had as a Christian but I've realized they're not necessarily indicative of gods nor spirits, just a feeling of connection and peace with the world. But you can't always trust your feelings to show you the best way. My life used to be ruled more by intuitive theistic practice than critical thought. Now it's more the opposite but you could probably make the argument that I tend to think too much about these sort of things and I'd probably agree. But this is how I grew as a Christian and grew out of it. Never fear trying to find kinks in the armor of your ideals, yourself or your group. If it can't stand up to it, it's something that should be deprecated because it's penetrable armor. You hire friendlies or mercenaries to do the penetration testing, lest the enemies exploit those vulnerabilities. Think critically but I'd also advise, as probably obvious, not so much that you're like me and become too tough on yourselves or others sometimes.
That said, I'm fine discussing religion face to face with people who want to "save me" other than their time of day, I'm just not a morning person. And if my views can't be contested or hold validity, what good are they?
This has been another late-night coffee-induced episode of 'what kind of mental wheel-spinning can I write tonight and still be somewhat coherent to most people'. I quit coffee for a couple months, I swear, but I just wasn't myself and the post-coffee anxiety levels were reaching the levels I had while drinking my normal few cups a day. And before someone thinks it's the "guilty conscience" of not believing in a god that gives me anxiety, try again. I used to have chest pains and really bad anxiety as a Christian and if anything, I've felt more at peace with others and myself now than I did when religious."
"Morality is an authority that's derived from logic. I see logic as the beautiful, elegant and simple machine code where the authority of the messy, complicated high-level code of morality is derived. Sometimes we have bugs in the system as largely a consequence of complicated, bloated and unchecked code. Things may still work fine but the system becomes more quirky. This, to me, is what religion has become. I think a lot of people see this more and more each day. They feel something deep down within themselves that something is wrong with it, they just can't place a finger on it but they still say half-heartedly tend to that belief.
It's like most high-level operating systems that've become bloated and inefficient, religion has strayed far from its primal roots of simple and elegant microkernel-based design. You know there's something there that has some validity and truth in its purpose, but it's way too buggy to feel coherent and true to purpose. So in that sense, I still run a multi-OS system. There's validity in them all, some purpose and truth, but they've become feature-bloated monsters and to anyone who likes simple and elegant design and function, it's in proper need of a complete re-write or deprecation altogether and replaced by more fitting and elegant code.
As the video demonstrates from Game Theory, tit-for-tat behavior is generally most efficient for survival. If you ask me, this is the logic most religion is based on. Some Christians may mention "turn the other cheek" but many even argue about the interpretation of this and even if it alludes to forgiveness in theory, but in practice it doesn't seem to work well because you have "cheaters" who take advantage of this. As my belief, very tolerant people and societies are short lived due to cheaters taking advantage and diluting the tolerant attitudes of its hosts as well as very intolerant people and societies as we see in societies ruled by tyrants. Ambitiousness makes one a target, especially if going against the freedoms of others. Of course, that also plays into a lot of my political views, always striving for a good balance in-between.
You'd think that I think a lot about religion and morality as much as I write about it but I've largely disassociated myself from thinking about it much in the past year or two. But I always feel my thought process is under attack, if not by others but myself also. This weekend was another reminder of this as I had a couple Baptists come to my door to try to "save" me before I had my morning coffee, not a great time for me so I spared few expenses in trying to be agreeable. Besides lots of circular logic, basically saying words in the bible are true because the bible is true, they gave me the old "what do you have to lose" argument, Pascal's Wager (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager). I replied firstly that one can't believe until convinced to believe. If the "you'll go to our god's hell" argument is used, then belief is purposeless if backed only by threats as it's not true belief or conviction. There's very few gods throughout history who threaten you if you don't believe. As you can see, it works okay for those who worry a lot as I did or those who feel easily intimidated but it's a shallow, purposeless "belief" or at least a shallow way to entice belief.
A second point on that argument is that I get to live a life that's true and free according to the principles I believe in, not according to principles I'm threatened to believe in. Truth in as much as can be attained and freedom to that same degree for all of humanity means a lot to me. To me, the old magic trick of telling someone all is well and your heart is lifted of burden if you just believe in the same god as others do, that may give you a temporary fulfillment like candy does, it doesn't mean it's good for you or others. What feels good to believe in is not necessarily what's best for yourself or society. Anecdotal, of course, but I consider myself to be a better person now than when I believed in a god. If we can go back to the computer analogy, you pull so much mental gymnastics trying to make that code fit within the reality of the situation and try to assert that burden on others and in the end, you have buggy, unkempt, complicated code that you're trying to wrestle.
They also threw the same old fodder I've thrown for years as a Christian and countered as a later atheist like the old argumentum ad populum, aka, because more people believe, that means it's probably true. This is a common and cheap tactic that holds little water. Firstly, more people eat boxed mac 'n cheese than steak or maybe more people drive a Camry than any other car, for instance. It doesn't mean those products are better, just likely more affordable, attainable and so they subsequently become embedded more in the culture so it's taken at face value. Of course, if that tactic doesn't work you then claim it's because of persecution, that way you get to divert the debate, save face and retain, perhaps fuel your convictions by going into defense, or underdog mode.
Another thing we discussed which I fundamentally disagreed with is free will. To me, you have cause --> effect. To them, I'm going to best assume, you have cause --> random variable, "free" decision making, god, or (who knows what people are thinking) --> effect. The "free decision making" aspect is not free but based on less concrete aspects such as neurology, personality, and various internal and external conditions. The "god of the gaps" phrase comes into play here. The more god is replaced with the unknown, the less valid a god seems, at least for theists, not deists. Of course, you could as I did, see the world as deterministic as a theist also, just that that god would be the instigator of the machine, the programmer, so to speak, which I came to find out later that it's a deistic belief. And still some might argue that the universe is deterministic and that we have perceived free will which for all intents and purposes is free will. But when trying to speak objectively about this subject, microscopic perception by the self has little validity compared to a more macroscopic and universal perception.
But in the end, I really don't have issue with anyone's beliefs as long as they don't present a viable threat to civilization and technological advancement. For the most part, it's not beliefs that are threats but the extent to which those beliefs are executed. As an aside, please don't come knocking on my door in the morning before I have my coffee, threatening me that'll I'll go to your version of a hell if I don't convince myself to believe in your god. I've somewhat wasted fifteen years of my life casually studying religion and philosophy, largely around the Abrahamic god and more specifically relating to Christianity. I've given your god plenty of time and commitment to convince me and at one point very early on, I thought I was but it didn't stand up to even casual questioning. When you're a Christian, you're sometimes deemed to have little "faith" if you dare question so that's one way they try to keep you locked into it. There's been thousands of gods throughout history. I'm tired of the arrogance of people thinking their god deserves so much more time and attention. And as a result of the arrogance and hyper-execution of religion, in some parts of the world you can't run for office if you don't believe in a god, even in the "free world". In other parts, if you don't follow their religion of peace, you're executed or tortured. Another case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, as some theists would put it. You get so lost in the peace you think you're standing for that you become the monster you fight, paraphrasing Nietzsche there. But who does fight for what they think is wrong for them to fight for? I failed to find the quote or source but I'll paraphrase, "What man goes to war thinking god isn't on their side?". We all fight for what we think should be.
Religious people don't have a monopoly on morality as they sometimes think. You should always ask yourself, is it right because it feels right or feels good, or is there some truth I'm missing because I'm following feelings more than a more macroscopic and objective logic? And is this truth objective because it feels like it connects to something more objective, what some would call a god or spirit, or does this really have tangible and quantitative objectivity that stands up to reason? Sometimes I still have the same spiritual feelings I had as a Christian but I've realized they're not necessarily indicative of gods nor spirits, just a feeling of connection and peace with the world. But you can't always trust your feelings to show you the best way. My life used to be ruled more by intuitive theistic practice than critical thought. Now it's more the opposite but you could probably make the argument that I tend to think too much about these sort of things and I'd probably agree. But this is how I grew as a Christian and grew out of it. Never fear trying to find kinks in the armor of your ideals, yourself or your group. If it can't stand up to it, it's something that should be deprecated because it's penetrable armor. You hire friendlies or mercenaries to do the penetration testing, lest the enemies exploit those vulnerabilities. Think critically but I'd also advise, as probably obvious, not so much that you're like me and become too tough on yourselves or others sometimes.
That said, I'm fine discussing religion face to face with people who want to "save me" other than their time of day, I'm just not a morning person. And if my views can't be contested or hold validity, what good are they?
This has been another late-night coffee-induced episode of 'what kind of mental wheel-spinning can I write tonight and still be somewhat coherent to most people'. I quit coffee for a couple months, I swear, but I just wasn't myself and the post-coffee anxiety levels were reaching the levels I had while drinking my normal few cups a day. And before someone thinks it's the "guilty conscience" of not believing in a god that gives me anxiety, try again. I used to have chest pains and really bad anxiety as a Christian and if anything, I've felt more at peace with others and myself now than I did when religious."
Comments
Post a Comment