Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Why the problem of evil also applies to atheist activists

"The bird of Hermes is my name,
Eating my wings to make me tame.
"
- The Ripley Scrolls
Christianity claims our world and ourselves are disordered and broken; that sin and evil cause a gulf between reality and how the world should be; that progress and improvement are still possible. These moral intuitions are so familiar and so ingrained into Western culture that some self-declared atheist SJW activists unknowingly appropriate these faith based claims and adapt a self-cannibalizing view of Western culture to solve their own version of the problem of evil. Many will resist this statement but they will find their proto-christian beliefs require an explanation for evil and this explanation must involve a self-defeating view of Western culture.

The SJW understanding of evil is an inheritance from Christianity (as is most of their worldview). Traditionally dualistic faiths explained evil as an demonic force present in our universe. Ancient Egyptian and Indian pagan religions saw the world as containing light and dark, good and bad, paired in alternating in cycles. Animist beliefs are similar, seeing the world as a clash of creative and destructive forces. Even Christianity casts Satan in the role of a demonic agency capable of actively influencing human will and human affairs. This raised a challenge for early church theologians: how to reconcile a single perfect omnipotent God with demonic evil?  The answer, most notably from St Augustine, was to reframe evil as an absence of goodness through the misuse of free will rather than as an active force capable of challenging God. Evil therefore is the discrepancy between how our disordered world actually is and how our world should be; it is what ought not to exist. 

It is now becoming clearer why SJW activists as proto-christians require an explanation of evil though they are loath to admit it. The goal of activism is to bring about social change by transforming the 'is' into the 'ought'. Social change requires rising awareness that the current status quo is not how society should function and that the current situation may be changed for the better. Awareness and persuasion both require an explanation of how the current situation arose to identify how it may be changed.

We have now arrived at the SJW problem of evil: how to explain the source of injustice to raise consciousness and affect change? Unfortunately the answer is all too familiar.

SJWers believe Christian institutions and Western Caucasian culture are based upon based a tradition of hierarchical elitism which gifts unearned privileges to white men while propagating oppressive social and political norms against females, people of colour, non-christian immigrants and non-heterosexual people. In other words, atheist activists accept a Christian understanding of a disordered world while rejecting a supernatural explanation of evil and must therefore necessarily view Western culture as the source of evil.  In doing so they self-cannibalize by undermining the source of their own moral intuitions while failing to offer any meaningful alternative aside from the default self-realizing consumers of a neo-liberal market economy characterized by crippling debt burdens, collapsing social services and vast income inequality.
Sunday, January 17, 2016

Does Stoicism support individual equality?


Zeno of Citium
"There is no other or more appropriate means of arriving at a definition of good or evil things, virtue or happiness, than to take our baring from common nature and the governance of the universe" -  Chrysippus.
Stoicism emphasises the universal over the local. It imposes duties to humanity over duties to friends. It instils self-control for flourishing over self-destructive passion. These ethical teachings are grounded by Nature being the standard to determine the good: Each of us has a place within the harmonious cosmic order and our duty is to adjust ourselves to living virtuously within the natural order as revealed by reason. But this raises an interesting question: Does Stoicism support individual equality?

Intuitively we answer affirmatively, pointing to Stoic universalism imposing duties to our fellow man. This may however be a rash judgement for Nature and natural order, both intrinsic to Stoicism, were traditionally invoked to support hierarchical inequality. To answer our question then we must examine the birthplace of Stoicism in ancient Greece and locate the seed of Western individual equality. 

 But first some clearing of obstacles is necessary.

When I studied philosophy I learned of the ancient world then of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment which gave birth to Modern Man endowed with natural rights and gifted with self-autonomy through reason. This account implies Christianity was an aberration that suppressed reason and oppressed mankind in a dark age of superstition and ignorance;  that the rediscovery of classical philosophy during the Renaissance began freeing mankind from the bonds of the Church. We must now put aside this account and attempt to view the classical world as it actually was rather than imposing a modern, and incomplete, interpretation upon it.

The origins of the classical world lay not in equality and rationality but in religion and the family.  It began as a loose association of humans organized into homesteads banding together for protection. Inside each homestead was a cult dedicated to the worship of family ancestors with the patriarch serving as head priest.  Each home was centred upon a hearth as a locus of worship where the patriarch offered sacrifices and chants passed down from generation to generation. Each family member had a religious duty to maintain the heart which both brought flickering illumination and good fortune for the heart was the material reflection of their ancestor spirits who lived under ground. The origins of the classical world then began in religion as small cults each worshipping their private ancestors within property boundaries established by a sacred domain.

Families prospered and grew and became extended forcing the need for larger city-state associations to develop. But family worship did not vanish but also extended with each expansion in numbers becoming associated with shared ancestral worship. The great city-states of ancient Greece then are best understood as associations of family cults dedicated to ancestor worship.

Eventually ancestor worship became worship of a single deity whose favour must be curried to ensure the survival of the city. The family patriarchs evolved into city magistrates ruled over by a king who also served as the head priest. If we remember a city-state and land was inseparable from the worship of a single deity, we can better understand the appeal of Stoic universalism which developed during the fall of the Greek city-states first to Macedon and eventually to the Roman empire.

Greek and Roman society was one of hierarchies with patriarchs and their first born sons at the top and slaves and women on the bottom. In public life citizens claimed to be guided by rationality to deduce the correct actions for the city and its God. Social inferiors were conveniently deemed irrational or at least not fully rational.  In domestic life patriarchs dominated their families with all but the first born son lacking even rudimentary rights. Rulers also served as priests. Citizens were few in number and were bonded to the protection of the city.

The core of ancient thinking therefore was the assumption of inequality. Even natural processes were understood as a graduated hierarchy with reason and the logos providing the key to social and natural order. Rulers were placed into their respective positions by nature with no need to justify their privileges and slaves were mere living tools by their very nature.

Let us now return to our central question: Does Stoicism support equality or inequality?

It can be argued the Stoic concept of an ordered cosmos reflects the hierarchy of dominance apparent throughout the ancient world. But I think this is unfair. Stoicism it makes no claim on whether a man should be a slave or a free citizen. It speaks little of economic and social order much less demands the status quo be maintained by divine decree. Rather Stoicism is concerned with an individuals inner tranquillity in the face of how the world actually is rather than the well being of a city or how the world should be; Stoicism is not a subversive doctrine.

This emphases on the individual is important and represents a break from the traditional philosophy of the ancient world where the unit of concern was the family and the city. We can reasonably conclude that in Stoicism we see the beginnings of the individual emerging from a system of family clans. Further we can state there is no central claim that natural inequality is a fixed feature of world in Stoicism.

Yet this is not enough. Transforming inequality in ancient society required an awareness that the world was not ordered but disordered; that mankind was not fated as part of the determined cosmos but granted freedom and responsibility over the natural world; that unevenly distributed reason does not grant equality but that each individual would one day stand in judgement for his actions regardless of social rank. In short, Christianity was required to transform the ancient world and these core doctrines are absent in Stoicism.

Against this, we could argue Stoic ethics imposes duties to our fellow humans and is therefore sufficient to support human rights for the common good and for the flourishing of individuals. This is reassuring but the argument still falls short of supporting individual equality.

We are now at the end of this enquiry. We examined the classical world and found hierarchies and slavery. We examined Stoic ethical teachings and found much that is noble but little that is subversive, preferring inner peace over worldly freedom. We therefore must admit Stoicism has little to support individual equality but takes no stance upon human inequality.

I am interested in hearing alternatives viewpoints. Can Stoicism can support equality? Please leave a comment and let me know. 
Sunday, January 10, 2016

Social Justice Warriors: A history and why the term is neccessary.

"The bird of Hermes is my name,
Eating my wings to make me tame.
"
- The Ripley Scrolls
The West is embroiled in an undeclared cultural civil war between secularism and Christianity. Like all civil wars the conflict is bitter with both sides believing their cause is just and legitimate.

Secularism draws it's legitimacy from the French revolution and the Enlightenment. The Church, secularists claim, kept us starving upon our knees while parasitic royals lived in luxury from our labour. The Enlightenment began freeing us from the bondage of religious tradition by ushering an awaking of mankind to the potential of science and reason for creating a better future through harnessing nature and molding society to benefit everyone instead of a privileged few.

But the battlefield has become muddy with once clear banners fallen and trampled into muck. The old rallying call of 'liberal' or 'atheist' can no longer distinguish the combatants.

The last fifteen years of  saw a re-eruption of the old science vs creationism conflict spearheaded by Richard Dawkins and the Four Horsemen. The battle quickly widened into liberal humanism versus religious conservatism as forgotten weapons were reforged and wielded anew. But these blanket banners could not unite differing fractions for long and the infamous elevatorgate incident sparked the inevitable schism. New secular splinter groups began forming almost overnight starting with the short lived Atheist+ whose members sought to expand atheism into a platform for civil rights embracing feminism and racial and gender equality. Soon atheism lost its predominant position in the conflict. The Internet made events more immediate and in mere years a reenactment of the 19th century Darwinian science wars become a reenactment of 1960s civil right struggles fought upon the battlefield of social media. Sociology replaced hard science.

The term social justice warrior (SJW) is both useful and necessary in this constantly shifting battlefield.

It is useful because the term identifies a clear group which no other term fully captures. This group is young and highly active on social media where they identify themselves as "feminist, geek, atheist, gamer, skeptic, freethinker and social justice activist". They draw their legitimacy from the American civil right struggle and from the normative sociology of the Frankfurt school of critical theory which justified censorship and language policing as necessary means for achieving equality and the overthrow of oppressive hierarchies. The closest alternative term is 'cultural marxism' but this fails to capture the social media spread of their movement.

It is necessarily because clarity demands we distinguish this group from both liberal atheists who concentrate on separating the church and state, and from libertarian atheists who have little patience for language policing and censorship tactics. Further, SWJs deserve special attention for their dangerous pandering of Islam and their naive support for unchecked 'no borders' immigration while distracting from actual social change by escalating frivolous causes to the level of civil right struggles. Finally SWJ is a necessary term for brevity in the face of ever increasing self-identification pronouns.

The sheer number of  SJWs may swell the ranks of secularism in the cultural civil war but their presence may well prove pyrrhic for they seek to undermine and destroy the very Christian-Humanistic institutions from which their own moral intuitions and beliefs are drawn. Like Ripleys Bird of Hermes, they eat their own wings to make themselves tame.


Do you agree or is social justice warrior an unnecessarily pejorative reactionary term? If so, what alternative terms would you suggest?


Monday, January 4, 2016

Happy new year to you all.



When I was 14 I was inspired by 'The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole' to keep a diary. I recorded my days and my thoughts fairly consistently during my teenage years, slacked off hugely during college and rallied during that awkward period of unemployment in-between college and the first job. I rarely reread my diaries instead treating them as a non-judgmental friend to talk with.

A few days ago I found a forgotten diary while rummaging around my bedside drawer. It started in 2010, the last entry was dated March 2015 and contained around 20 pages of the barely legible scribbling I call handwriting.

Half a decade and I managed to write just 20 pages.

More depressing was the contents. Most entries started with "I can't believe 9 months have passed since I last wrote. I will now quit smoking, exercise more and sleep more." Then a sequence of four or five daily entries, another huge time lapse and another astonished entry saying 'I can’t believe it's been...."

And that is my diary for the last five years. The same shit over and over.

So as I completely suck at keeping even simple goals (like posting this before the 1st), this traditional new year reflective post will instead consist of a song called 'January Man' by Irish folk singer Christy Moore. Why? Well, it's topical but mostly because I have come to like folk music. Not in huge Irish mammy while cooking the Sunday roast doses, but as a change from time to time.


Previous years [2014] [2013] [2012]
Sunday, December 13, 2015

Catholic etiquette - When to handfeed attractive girls.

Receiving the holy gift in the correct manner.

For some time we have heard persistent and troubling rumors of parishioners deviating from traditional intimacy by receiving communion on their hands instead of kneeling with tongue outstretched before a priest. Equally troubling are the 'fashionable' bishops who actually approve of this dangerously liberal practice.

Communities leave themselves vulnerable to spiritual assaults by removing themselves from Gods protection through heresy and through embracing worldly fashions. Sadly for the Spanish community of Pamplona, the forces of hell unlashed horrors upon them greater than the entire Thirty Years' War. Vultus Christi describes the crime:-
The sacrileges and profanations of the Thirty Years War in 17th century France pale in comparison to the  horrible sacrilege that took place in Pamplona, Spain earlier this year. Spanish “artist” Abel Azcona stole more than 240 consecrated Hosts by pretending to receive Holy Communion at Mass. He then placed the hosts on the ground to form the word “pederasty” in Spanish. The sacrilege is being prolonged by a display of photographs in a public art gallery in Pamplona, sponsored by the city’s Department for Culture. Protestors demonstrated against the sacrilegious exhibit in Pamplona last evening and more than 75,000 people have signed a petition asking the city council to remove the exhibit immediately.  [Via: Vultus Christi.org] 
Our faith demands we find hope in the darkest of days and so we pray these deviants will accept the truth of their error and embrace the beauty of tradition.

However in these cynical times we must once again warn against overzealous hand feeding of able bodied girls. The following antedate is sufficient to illustrate poor etiquette when dealing with such matters:-
There is a certain power in the reception of Holy Communion in the traditional manner of the Western Church: kneeling and on the tongue.
I had an Indian priest staying with me and his bishop came and arranged to spend the weekend appealing for money in the local parishes. I had had to speak very sternly to him after he celebrated Mass here, he more or less made up his own Eucharistic Prayer, which barely reflected the Church's understanding of the Holy Eucharist, I think he had done his post-grad studies in Germany. In the evening we had a reception for some of the leading Indian Catholics in Brighton.

I am sure the Bishop was not in favour of the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue but he took great delight in giving tit-bits to the more attractive young women, insisting they didn't use their hands. I could understand why a young non-Catholic husband muttered darkly about 'punching his lights out', after the bishop had given his wife a third piece of honey coconut cake, I think it was the licking of his fingers by her, that he insisted on, that finally upset her husband. I managed to persuade him to take her home rather create an unpleasant scene. [Via: marymagdalen.blogspot.ie]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
 
;