Why We Can't Be Friends

    While taking a stroll through a near empty park late at night, you notice a suspicious man in the distance walking towards you. Upon being confronted by this unknown individual, he requests that you "hand your wallet over, or else". Meanwhile, I am witness to this ultimatum but choose to keep my distance. Your reluctance to comply, results in you being stabbed and left bleeding profusely. Making sure it's safe to do so, I approach your frail and near lifeless body, offering my belated assistance, coupled with a strong rebuke towards your failure to acquiesce to your now fleeing aggressor. I proceed to tell you that "I not only endorse your attackers right to inflict such harm, I also long to stand before him in reverence".

    Here iv'e played out a scenario in which not only am I less than inclined to condemn your assailants actions, I openly exonerate him, and with a repugnant level of ostentation I declare my longing for an opportunity to accord him due praise. Were I to merely hold this belief, let lone act in this manner, my moral compass would and should be held under a considerable amount of scrutiny. After all, what kind of a person would be so lacking in empathy and impelled by an astounding display of reprehensible barbarity, to endorse such behavior and revere such a person? Surely, apart from the sociopath, there aren't many people among us who lack the moral responsibility and social conscience to proudly harbor these belief's. On the contrary, belief's of this nature are more common than any morally judicious person would hope for.

   There is an unfortunate, although, necessary parallel to be drawn between the above scenario and a particular religious belief. One that has drawn my attention and bolstered my contempt. Let us now adapt the original scene to this belief. The ultimatum you were given was "hand your wallet over, or else", in God's case, it's "accord me your belief, or burn in Hell". Regardless of one's confidence in the veracity of this proposition, the sheer thuggery by which it is propounded, renders the proponent (i.e. God) immoral - considering the fact that He is said so be omniscient, e.g., He knows whether you will accord Him such belief in the first place, or not. You now face an individual who has, without any evidence, bought into the existence of God. They have responded to this ultimatum, one that is also without evidence, by believing, so as not to burn in Hell. Their position now, is one of Faith and this veneration is often rooted in fear. Going a step further, this person now proclaims the same belief as in the first scenario, "I not only endorse your attackers right to inflict such harm, I also long to stand before him in reverence". The corollary is irrefutable

    Such a proclamation cannot be anything but the very antithesis of morality. The fact that one may not, in and of themselves condone your descent into a fiery abyss and instead appoint this contemptible role to their God, is a simple shifting of intent and vacuous, to say the least. The very reverence accorded to this despotic and callous figure, (whether God or Human) is a remarkably odious and immoral practice. The question to be asked is, how can one regard this belief as moral and respect it, let alone the person holding it? The belief that you will suffer infinite punishment for a finite "crime", is as ludicrous and repulsive as it is immoral. The adherents' to this fictional tyrant may seemingly, personally feel at ease by entertaining this ultimatum and making a decision, but the real world side-effect's of holding it to be true by iterating His right to do so, then worshiping Him, would be tantamount to worshiping the brute in our first scenario. To uphold this morally detestable position when it comes to God, only reduces one's moral sensibilities to a withering pile, (just as it would do so in the first scenario) bringing upon themselves the righteous indignation of others.

     The effect's of this belief are pernicious to social relationships, societal well-being and moral responsibility. Such belief's, withdraw detrimental amounts of laudable righteousness from ones moral savings, only to be squandered and misappropriated, potentially leaving one despicably, unequivocally and utterly, morally bankrupt.

- "There can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven" - Robert G. Ingersoll

Willful Ignorance

    Everyday, from the very moment we wake up, right up until the moment we fall asleep, our senses incessantly relay a plethora of information. This information is used by our brains to either consciously or sub-consciously assess, plan, act, react, memorise, recall and much more. Effectively, the knowledge we harbor acts as a central junction for reference, providing us with the capacity to achieve everything from the most mundane task, to the utterly phenomenal; The more we learn, the greater our potential. In this piece, I would like to convey one of my biggest concerns, which also aids in the retardation of societal progress and well-being; The abject practice of 'Willful Ignorance'.

    From early childhood to adolescence, we absorb and retain an innumerable amount of information, constantly asking questions, probing our environment, learning from our mistakes and developing intricate concepts of all kinds, to aid in our ever growing and elaborate understanding of our personal and social lives. As any parent can attest, children have an almost obsessive fondness with the question 'Why?', 'Why are Trees green?', 'Why do Dog's bark?', 'Why do i have to go to School?'. Their inquisitiveness also extends to 'How?' and beyond. Eventually most will dull their curiosity with responsibility, mature, find themselves, and a place within society, fall into a routine and become intellectually content.

    When recalling my childhood, I can vividly remember similar moments of unremitting questions, slowly driving my parent's mad. In time, my questions ventured far from my immediate surroundings and rode upon the shoulders of some of our greatest philosophical minds and ingenious scientific innovators. Clearly biting off more than I could chew at such a young age and overwhelmed by the sheer scope of the icebergs' tip, I reluctantly accepted the painstaking pace of my self education. For many years, experiencing long periods of frustration due to my ignorance, punctuated by momentary, ecstatic and blissfully relieving glimpses of comprehension, sustained my intellectual hunger. However, over the years, the onslaught of obligations, from my schooling to a part-time job and the sudden loss of my father at the crescendo of my formative years, dejected my fervent hunger for knowledge for years to come. My early twenties brought with them a renewed spark of intellectual curiosity, but to continue this journey once more, I thought it prudent to accept the Socratic Maxim of my ignorance.

    So why is it that we Humans, with such an inquisitive nature, fall into the void that is intellectual apathy? Why are we so 'willing', to be 'willfully ignorant'? I believe that one plausible answer can be derived from 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs', although it has been objected that this theory is overly 'individualistic' in it's explanatory scope, due to it's failure in recognizing and adjusting for the needs in 'collectivist' societies, we can nevertheless, draw parallels to better understand and address our own points of concern. 'Maslow's Hierarchy of  Needs' was proposed by Abraham H. Maslow, in his 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation. This Hierarchy is often represented by a pyramid, with 'Physiological' needs occupying the lowest layer, followed by 'Safety', 'Love/Belonging', 'Esteem' then 'Self-actualization' (which includes, 'acceptance of facts') residing at it's peak. Maslow's theory submits that the lowest layer of needs must be met, before an individual will become motivated to move on to the next layer above. What we can take from this is that regardless of the order and importance of each layer, one must have certain needs met before feeling a strong desire to gain knowledge and abolish their ignorance. What it comes down to, is the level of value we place on such an undertaking.

    Just imagine a world where knowledge is not cherished, where it is not valued, recognized or sought-after. Just think where we would now be, if people like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Aristotle and the countless multitudes of exceptional Human beings did not contribute the things they did. At this point, i would like to stress that I am not purely endorsing intellectual curiosity due to the physical utility of such knowledge. Rather, I am advocating an increased interest in the attainment of knowledge for it's own sake. Think about it, what are the physical utilities in enjoying Shakespeare's works? or a Mozart Symphony? Reading a novel or listening to music? Admiring artwork or travelling to exotic locations? None, yet we surround and immerse ourselves within a world of entertainment. The realization that must be had, is that without ample knowledge of the world, we fail to 'Fully' appreciate it, this deficiency leads to intellectual apathy and without an understanding of the world in which one lives, one cannot expect to make informed decisions towards the betterment and well-being of themselves and society in the long run. Why not only pursue the knowledge that is of immediate interest then? The trouble with such reasoning is our ignorance (how would i know that 'Z' would be of interest to me, if knowledge of 'Y' is required to spark my interest in 'Z', but i ignore 'Y' due to my shortsighted tendencies?). Knowledge is the foundation of wisdom, although one cannot know everything while on the never ending road to wisdom, each enlightening milestone provides a slightly broader view.

    We have reached a point where one can be marginalized for reading a book or saying anything insightful, there are always people ready and willing to belittle valiant efforts made towards the attainment of knowledge, most of the time this is due to their own lack of value placed upon intellectual discourse. I have never known a society to fail due solely to desiring knowledge and truth. What could be more wondrous and beautiful than treading down the path created by the great minds before us, to see what they have seen, to know what they have known, to investigate and contribute to (however minuscule the supplement) this stupendously vast sea of accomplishment? What better way to celebrate our tiny speck of a species in the grand scheme of an ever expanding universe? What virtuous way to pay homage to this inexplicably, breathtakingly awe-inspiring Human achievement, that is the culmination of all we have ever known; than to be a part of it?

 

Offending the Religious

    The one thing i have found painfully obvious, ever since that delightful moment of reason filled epiphany, which resulted in 'god' being rightfully dragged off kicking and screaming from the throne of reality, making his embarrassing but relieving entrance into the cluttered ranks of childish fairytale's, is how easy it is to offend the religious. (Previous sentence making a fine example).

    A group of friends having a laugh, can generally, verbally kick dirt on each others shoes about their favourite sports team, music, sense of fashion (or lack thereof), previous choices in partners, driving habits, talking habits, political views etc. Discussions of these kinds are generally light hearted, sometimes passionate, mostly civil, but never socially taboo. So what makes religion any different? Nothing, it isn't. There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get.

    So, should the 'religious' have the right to be offended by such comments? should they be hurt, angry or resentful? Yes. Yes of course, we all have the right to be offended by any statement that 'we believe' is discourteous, but does that mean that our views warrant unconditional respect? First, i would like to make clear the distinction between respect for ones beliefs and respect for ones 'right' to hold beliefs.
  
    In most countries in this day and age (although nowhere near enough) we are fortunate to have the right to freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, regardless of your beliefs, Theism, Deism, Mono/Poly/Pantheism etc you are entitled to them, although, one can not expect you to respect their religious beliefs, anymore than one can expect you to respect their favourite music. Respect for their 'right' to hold those views/beliefs on the other hand, is a fundamental characteristic of the kind of equality rooted in the democracy that we often take for granted.

    Most people are conditioned from a very young age to avoid saying anything that might offend religious sensitivities. This avoidance creates a habitable margin for introspection and growth of religious beliefs without the external critical analysis required to correlate them with known reality.
    Simply put, our beliefs inform our choices and actions in many aspects of our lives, and our actions affect the reality around us. If the aim is for our actions to have a positive effect, then we must do all that we reasonably can to make sure our beliefs are in agreement with reality. Needless to say, a well informed factual belief is just the starting point for a desired positive outcome. The fact that religious beliefs are not held to the same level of scrutiny as say, Politics,(the former influencing the state of the world just as much as the latter) due to an unfounded level of taboo placed on the topic by society, we find that religions get a free pass from the open and intellectual discourse that aids many areas of human interest, in return, this taboo only slows the progress of science and civilization due to a clash in opposing ideals.

    I must stress, before you feel the need to take your anger out by attempting to silence a person who expresses an opposing belief and demand of them respect, take a moment to recognize that they owe your 'beliefs' no such respect, the same as you owe theirs none, this is not to say that we should chastise for the sake of exercising our ability to do so, rather, we should allow for a mode of discourse for such disagreements and at least respect each others right to express them.

- "In any case, the argument against the persecution of opinion does not depend upon what the excuse for persecution may be. The argument is that we none of us know all truth, that the discovery of new truth is promoted by free discussion and rendered very difficult by suppression, and that, in the long run, human welfare is increased by the discovery of truth and hindered by the action based on error." Bertrand Russell -

Is 'Faith' a Virtue?

Before we attempt to tackle this question, we must first establish the definition of 'Faith' and 'Virtue', so as to know what it is that we are implying. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Faith' as;

“Complete trust in someone or something”

Or

“Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”

Now we look at 'Virtue';

“A quality considered morally good, or desirable in a person”

________

        As you are well aware, in common, everyday language, the word Faith is thrown around a fair bit, so I will address this, before moving on to 'Faith' in it's latter sense and it's questionable 'Virtue'.

        Let's take the fairly common sentiment “you can do it, I have Faith in you”. By our previous definition, you would actually mean you, 'trust this person will succeed'. Now let us say that we have a friend called 'John', John has entered a swimming tournament and hopes he will win. The only trouble is, John swims like an anvil. Sincerely wanting John to win, but knowing, based on previous evidence that there is almost no chance he will win, we boost his confidence by playing the 'Faith' card in hopes that he will.

        In almost every way that we use the word 'Faith', what we mean is that we Trust, or Believe in this person or thing. Many times, we do this not realising that we are confusing for example, 'Sincere hope for the success of the person/persons in question', with 'unsubstantiated Faith claims of their success'. But all is well and good, day to day misapplication of words are not what I am here to write about.

        

        Now what of 'Religious' Faith, surely that is a virtue? Surely the scores of 'faithful' prostrating before who they 'believe' is the one and only almighty god, is an act of piousness which has no equal within the ranks of human virtue?

        

        On the contrary. What religion demands of the faithful, is an utterly firm, unwavering, unquestionable level of 'Faith'. Faith not only makes no requirements for proof, but rather, it impedes it, it thrives in spite of it, insisting and depending on the 'Credulity' and 'Gullibility' of people, it flourishes in the minds of 'believers', with an almost childlike arrogance worn like a badge of honour on the chest of ignorance. Attached to it, is years of emotional baggage, making it all the more difficult to let go in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.

        Having previously defined 'Virtue' as “A quality considered morally good, or desirable in a person”, one must ask oneself if qualities such as, Credulity and Gullibility are morally good, let alone desirable?

        There is belief based on evidence and then there is 'Faith', If one is to establish a connection with reality and the world as it is, and attempt to determine if ones perception is accurately correlated with it, then the pathway to achieving this is via critical thinking and reason as applied to evidence, thus by definition; no amount of 'Faith' is sufficient enough to confirm ones perception of reality, as reality.

A Virtue? One would sincerely hope not.