Skip to main content

Dictators, Monarchs and Anarchy: on Earth and in Heaven

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Have you ever noticed that the interior design of churches bears a striking resemblance to courts? From the pews to the preacher, and even their outfits!

There is a curious similarity between our politics and our religion, and an even more curious similarity between our systems of power within human societies and the way we imagine power structures within our universe.

“God” is still imagined by many people to be a king. This metaphor originated in the time when this image came to bear people were living in a monarchy. The king was the most powerful person in the kingdom, so God was imagined to be a king.

It is interesting that as our political models have changed, this image hasn’t.

I suppose in some circles it has, and “God” is imagined to be a little more democratic. But in some circles God is still imagined to be a bit like a king, or what could even be considered a fascist dictator (who punishes with eternal suffering if one doesn’t do what he says).

Alan Watts says on The Worlds Most Dangerous Book:

When one considers the architecture and ritual of churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, it is obvious until most recent times that they are based on royal or judicial courts. A monarch who rules by force sits in the central court of his donjon with his back to the wall, flanked by guards, and those who come to petition him for justice or to offer tribute must kneel or prostrate themselves simply because these are difficult positions from which to start a fight. Such monarchs are, of course, frightened of their subjects and constantly on the anxious alert for rebellion. Is this an appropriate image for the inconceivable energy that underlies the universe? True, the altar-throne in Catholic churches is occupied by the image of God in the form of one crucified as a common thief, but he hangs there as our leader in subjection to the Almighty Father, King of the universe, propitiating Him for those who have broken His not always reasonable laws. And what of the curious resemblances between Protestant churches and courts of law? The minister and the judge wear the same black robe and “throw the book” at those assembled in pews and various kinds of boxes, and both ministers and judges have chairs of estate that are still, in effect, thrones.

The crucial question, then, is that if you picture the universe as a monarchy, how can you believe that a republic is the best form of government, and so be a loyal citizen of the United States? It is thus that fundamentalists veer to the extreme right wing in politics, being of the personality type that demands strong external and paternalistic authority. Their “rugged individualism” and their racism are founded on the conviction that they are the elect of God the Father, and their forebears took possession of America as the armies of Joshua took possession of Canaan, treating the Indians as Joshua and Gideon treated the Bedouin of Palestine. In the same spirit the Protestant British, Dutch and Germans took possession of Africa, India and Indonesia, and the rigid Catholics of Spain and Portugal colonized Latin America. Such territorial expansion may or may not be practical politics, but to do it in the name of Jesus of Nazareth is an outrage.

In The Nature of Consciousness, Watts notes with a twinkle in his eye (I imagine through his voice) that: 

“the man who rules you all is the biggest crook in the bunch. Because he’s the one who succeeded in crime. The other people are pushed aside because they–the criminals, the people we lock up in jail–are simply the people who didn’t make it. So naturally, the real boss sits with his back to the wall and his henchmen on either side of him.”

When you really think about our conceptions of God and Satan, and where they have come from and how they have changed throughout history, I can’t help wonder:

What if power-hungry men switched around the human conceptions of Satan and God, in order that they might rule earth?

In other words what if we are mixed up: what if Satan is good and God is bad? Is it more likely that “God” is a dictator wanting worship, or a social libertarian wanting individuals to enjoy their lives while contributing freely and positively to society?

In The Dictator (undoubtedly a ridiculous and distasteful movie, which I enjoyed), General Aladeen asks: “Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes. And bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.”

Would it be better to have a peaceful dictatorship or a violent democracy? Neither.

How about a democracy based on freedom and non-violent conflict?

I wonder if that could become the basis of our power structures on earth, and maybe in (metaphorically speaking) heaven too?

General Aladeen goes on to admit, for all its faults, a love for Democracy (in the movie represented by a Greeny who doesn’t shave her armpits). This is a sentiment shared by many including myself. Democracy is good until the point where it joins forces with capital and media and turns into a somewhat fascist state.

None of this is black and white, but it’s interesting to contemplate the extremes and the endless in-betweens…

 

 

 

Truth

Living authentically, and its anxieties

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

I am far too aware of my being-towards-death. While Heidegger calls this “authenticity”, I call it “frick’n annoying” and a “tad bit depressing”. But it’s too late now.

My ignorance is gone and like when you see a huge zit on someone’s face, it’s hard to then go back to ignoring it.

For all it’s frustrations there may be something to it: an awareness of death leads to more conscious decisions in the way you live life.

Awareness of death makes you reflect on what you care about, and encourages you to ensure your actions reflect that care.

This is the “authentic” experience of  not only being-toward-death but living-toward-death.

Heidegger predicts a certain anxiety that comes with this authenticity. The anxiety of understanding your limited time in your body, that every day brings you a day closer. But he thinks that with this anxiety, life becomes a bit thicker – more meaningful, more purposeful – because one lives with an awareness of his or her finitude.

Consequentially I spend a lot of time asking and re-asking myself: What do I want out of life?

In a less self-centric form that question is: What do I want to give back to life? That is, how do I want to influence the world beyond my own bodily existence?

And from that question: Am I getting that and giving that in my life right now? Am I on a path that will continue to bring more of this into my future?

 

The pic: I took this photo of a boy sending a rocket into space earlier this year in Nicaragua while on an adventure with a friend who is doing amazing work over there, an example of truly authentic living. Jason set up the La Isla Foundation to address the epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease among sugar cane workers in Central America. Check it out: http://laislafoundation.org


Adventure, Truth

The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Really Are

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

No one “gets it” like Alan Watts gets it. He summarises “it” in a 160 page book called “THE BOOK: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are” (1966).  This TAG proves the pattern: no matter what I learn in the other fields and areas of scholarship, I can’t help but return to the metaphoric and comedic language of Alan Watts.

These two paragraphs in the Preface to THE BOOK, (almost) captures the thesis I’m spending hours upon hours trying to write:

“THIS BOOK explores an unrecognized but mighty taboo—our tacit conspiracy to ignore who, or what, we really are. Briefly, the thesis is that the prevalent sensation of oneself as a separate ego enclosed in a bag of skin is a hallucination which accords neither with Western science nor with the experimental philosophy-religions of the East—in particular the central and germinal Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism. This hallucination underlies the misuse of technology for the violent subjugation of man’s natural environment and, consequently, its eventual destruction.

We are therefore in urgent need of a sense of our own existence which is in accord with the physical facts and which overcomes our feeling of alienation from the universe. For this purpose I have drawn on the insights of Vedanta, stating them, however, in a completely modern and Western style—so that this volume makes no attempt to be a textbook on or introduction to Vedanta in the ordinary sense. It is rather a cross-fertilization of Western science with an Eastern intuition.”

It’s contents includes:

1 Inside Information 11
2 The Game of Black-and-White 29
3 How To Be a Genuine Fake 53
4 The World Is Your Body 82
5 So What? 100
6 IT 125

Reading these paragraphs make me question why I am writing a thesis that seems to take the above two paragraphs and make them a whole lot more complicated?

I guess that’s the process of growth: take things apart, make them more complex, then put them back together, and see if there’s something useful you can add in returning it to the simplicity. Even Watts wrote and spoke at length about “Nothingness”…

I doubt I can add much to the messages Alan Watts conveys so effectively, but given the feeling of alienation of humans from their universe continues, as does the exploitation of our fellow humans and our planet, both which appear connected to understandings of self and world that don’t align with a holistic look at what western science tells us (including evolution, emergence and quantum physics). Maybe my contribution will be exploring how the idea captured in THE BOOK may be put to use in new ways…

THE BOOK is definitely worth a read (or Google the title and PDF and you’ll surely find a free copy) and The Nature of Consciousness (an audio lecture series) is well worth listening to, at least ten times:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhRWYFJ2pyI[/youtube]

Hopefully when my ability to express these ideas improves I will be able to share this in ways that doesn’t simply direct people away from my blog. When one is working over 4-days a week, and trying to write up a long academic thesis by the end of the year, there’s only so much you can do…. I guess it’ll all happen in good time.

 

Truth,

Are Australians “losing their faith”?

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal Blog titled Australian’s Lose Their Faith reported that 4.8 million Aussies marked “No Religion” on last year’s census. 

Following this article I spent an afternoon analysing the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2011 Census.

The most interesting points:

  • “No Religion” 22.34% (made up of Atheists 0.27% ; Agnostics 0.16%; No Religion nfd 21.86%; Humanism 0.04% and Rationalism 0.02%).
  • “Not Stated” 8.57% (which may be because of the design of the survey form, in which the “No Religion” option was a little hidden – see article on this here).
  • “Other Religions” (Indigenous, Baha’i, Chinese, Japanese, Nature religions etc) added up to 1.45%;
  • Hinduism 1.28%; Buddhism 2.46%;
  • a range of Christianity 61% (including Uniting Church 4.96%; Catholic 25.33%; Pentecostals 1.1%; Anglican 17.14%).

There has been a constant growth in the “No Religion” category in Australia:

  • 1991 Census – 12.9% No Religion
  • 1996 Census – 16.6% No Religion
  • 2001 Census – 15.5% No Religion (maybe people got scared after 911?)
  • 2006 Census – 18.7% No Religion
  • 2011 Census – 22.34% No Religion

Some people seem surprised this statistic of 22.34% of a population to be without religion is high. Others seem shocked that 22.34% is so low – thinking it more likely to be 22.34% religious, and 77.66% non religious.  

Over 50 million Americans (16.1% of the population of the United States) ticked the same box in their latest PEW survey That is, 16.1% ticked the “Unaffiliated” box which is broken down into Atheist 1.6%, Agnostic 2.4% and Nothing in particular 12.1%.

An assumption seemingly unquestioned is the idea that having no religion means the same thing as having no faith. I beg to differ: one need not classify themselves as part of an institutionalized religion to have faith in some thing bigger than themselves. 

We have the opportunity to interpret the Holy Books of all religions in their historical context, and see how it has been written, collected, edited and interpreted for different purposes by different power-hungry men. Learn. Question. THINK!

One need not pretend they know what “God” is, and what “He” thinks. Have we not yet arrived at a stage where we can let go of this human-centred de-contextualised ignorant arrogance?

“God” is a WORD that represents something that remains a mystery.

Sure this word has been used and abused by people who attach stories to it and consider these stories as inseparable from the unknowable creative forced that the word represents.

Science admits it shortfalls, its assumptions, and strives to keep improving theories to make them closer reflections of “truth”. But it never stops questioning (at least it shouldn’t, in theory).

Religion could benefit from being more critical of itself: of it’s doctrines, its dogmas, the methods of teaching, and the consequences of their follower’s actions for the rest of the world. That being said, so could science.

It’s ok to be critical of what you have been taught. In a democratic society it’s essential that we are.

In short I think it’s wonderful that Australians are losing their religion, but I hope that we aren’t losing our faith – in the sense of trusting our intuition and living in connection with the great mystery of life that we are a part of.

 

Truth

Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

“To me war is a lot of prick waving. OK? Simple thing that’s all it is. War is a whole lot of men standing out on the field waving their pricks at one another,” said George Carlin, in his 1992 special Jammin’ in New York.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c[/youtube]

“Men are insecure about the size of their dicks and so they have to kill one another over the idea. That’s what all that asshole jack bullshit is all about. That is what all that adolescent macho-male posturing and strutting in bars and locker rooms is all about. It is called dick fear. Men are terrified that their pricks are inadequate and so they have to compete with one another to feel better about themselves and since war is the ultimate competition basically men are killing each other in order to improve their self-esteem. You do not have to be a historian or political scientist to see the bigger dick foreign policy theory at work. It sounds like this: What? They have bigger dicks?! Bomb them! And off course the bombs and the rockets and the bullets are all shaped like dicks. It is a subconscious need to project the penis into other peoples’ affairs. It is called FUCKING WITH PEOPLE!”

George Carlin (1937-2008), was an American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist, actor and writer/author, who won five Grammy Awards for his comedy albums. His commentary and criticisms about the government and media on the war in the Persian Gulf are just as “We like war… because we’re good at it. You know why we’re good at it? Because we get a lot of practice!… and it’s a good thing we are — we are not very good in anything else anymore. Can’t built a decent car; can’t make a TV set or VCR worth a fuck. Got no steel industry left; can’t educate our young people; can’t get health care for our old people; but we can bomb the shit out of your country alright! Especially if your country is full of brown people…”

Comedians are like poets, capturing in a few lines what takes other types of writers thousands of words. The irony, the absurdity, the obvious… when put in the right way makes you wonder: how does such a state of political economics continue?

“You probably noticed that I don’t feel about that war the way we were told, we were supposed to feel about that war, the way we were ordered and instructed by the USA government to feel about that war. You see, I tell you, my mind does not work that way. I got this real moron thing I do, it’s called thinking and I am not a very good American, because I like to form my own opinions! I don’t just roll over when I am told to. Sad to say most Americans just roll over on command. Not me. I have certain rules I live by.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgps85scy1g[/youtube]

“I’d like to point out things that bring us together, things that point our similarities instead of our differences cause that’s all you ever hear about: our differences. That’s all the media and the politicians are ever talking about, the things that separate us. Things that make us different from one another. That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society: they try to divide the rest of the people: they keep the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money. Fairly simple thing, happens to work. You know, anything different, that’s what they’re going to talk about: race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other so they can keep going to the bank. You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all the money and pays none of the taxes. The middle class pay all of the taxes, does all the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class — keep ’em showing up to those jobs.'”

The sad but true (and slightly absurd) state of society. Twenty years have passed since Carlin spoke these words, has anything changed? Yes – the global upper, middle and lower have gotten bigger, and the gap wider. It’s an interesting state of play. These rules, that the upper class seems to set… they work for the upper class, but not really for anyone else…

Why do the masses – the middle and lower class – keep playing a game they are destined to lose? Well when one is born into a social situation it’s hard to imagine it will ever be different. But power is always shifting, constantly re-negotiated. There’s always a counter-culture and occasion they overpower the dominant one. The only truth I know is that everything will always change. In what way, only time will tell… but to be sure, whether we know it or not, we are all part of the negotiation process.

 

Truth, ,

Left, Right, and Identity

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment
Trey Parker and Matt Stone

During the Three Fork discussions (see this morning’s post, which I didn’t want to be longer than it already was) I began to relate the tension between left and right to the tension between the two parts of our “self” in time, that Paul Ricoeur refers to as the ipse and the idem.

  • The ipse is the “selfhood” – the you that was living in a moment sitting at school listening (or not) to a teacher talk, the you that is living in the moment right now reading these words, and the you that will be in the moment in ten years, twenty years, thirty years on in your future. This is the part of you that is constantly changing, defined by the separation, living in the present within a continuum of time. In accounting terms this might be seen as the Balance Sheet at any single point in time.
  • The idem is the “Sameness” – the part of you that was you at ten, and is still you at sixty. It is the long-term trajectory of one entity in time. In accounting terms it’s the Profit and Loss Statement – observed through it’s changing values during a defined period.
  • Ricoeur posits that the idem and the ipse are joined through narrative.
  • Aspects of narratives communication include:
    • promises (to which an idem works to hold the two separate ipse’s accountable for),
    • convictions (the motivation for working to fulfil a promise),
    • memories (one cannot fulfil a promise that they do not remember making),
    • forgiveness (the ability to promise contains the ability to reverse that promise, and part of life living is the freedom of future idems),
    • and finally the forgetting (the letting go, the moving on, the closure and space for new beginnings).

What the right side is to the left side of the brain, the ipse is to the idem of a personal identity.

Selfhood within Sameness. Separation within Connection. Conflict within Conformity.

Neither side of the brain can operate without the other. Some doses and mixtures of either part can be destructive, while other doses and mixtures of the two can be creative.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone[1]

We face these tensions in our daily life: one ipse’s decides to lose five kilos, yet one’s future ipse may decide to eat a block of chocolate.

The long-term state of a person relies on the short-term decisions that person makes.

Similarly the long-term state of a society relies on the short-term decisions of its citizens.

Peace or violence?

In a way this tension between Right and Left, the tension of the Collective and the Individualist, the tension between “you” and the “you-in-this-moment”, and also relates to the tension between Structure and Agency (that is, the power of the collective institutions and processes Vs the power of individuals who act and react within those systems).

A life led by the right side of the brain = peace in the short-term, bliss in the moment of feeling united and at one; but without the left it leads to self indulgence, vulnerable to the violent side-effects of conformity when it is not matched with some conflict – critical thinking, questioning the context, separation from the norm.

A life led by the left side of the brain = violence in the short term, even simply the act of being separated, standing alone, in fear of death, in a struggle to survive, with violent effects that the pursuit of individual self-interest can cause.

By and large I think the left side is more painful – as it is defined by the separation; and the right side is more blissful – as it is defined by the connection. Yet bliss and pain are temporary states, felt inside a moment. If one wanted only to create peace in the world for a moment, the right side of the brain would be the key.

But if one wants to decrease violence and increase peace in the long-term, looking to the right side for solutions is a waste of time. In the case of Jill Bolte Taylor, had her brain not returned to the left side periodically she wouldn’t have managed to call for help. The right side, the bliss, may have been great – but it wasn’t going to help save her life.

The same can be said about drugs or even meditation – they may bring about states of nirvana and bliss, but these states are temporary and hence must be used in conjunction with what the left side of our brain has to offer.

The Right and Left together can = peace or violence in the long term. It depends on the dialogue and relationship between the two.

Capitalism defines the relationship in economic terms, applying Right (politically) principles of individualism, privatisation, self-ownership as the path to harmonious market-driven futures that are also better for the whole.

Marxism defines a relationship that considers revolution, the Left (politically) undertaking largely violent conflict to take over the Right and force Leftist principles of shared ownership etc onto the world for the better of the whole.

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx developed their theories in hope of bettering society, making it more peaceful, yet neither theory seems to get there. The side effects and long term trajectory of both are pretty depressing.

What’s the solution? I have no idea except to say I think there’s something worthy in continuing the process of seeking it. Do you?

[1] From the YouTube clip with audio of Alan Watts and South Park animators Trey Parker and Matt Stone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM

Peace, Truth

Seek Understanding

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Even the most obscure ideas and actions come from somewhere. Rather than getting defensive, attacking, or ignoring, I recently read a good tip: seek understanding.

David Harvey writes: “It is irrelevant to ask whether concepts, categories and relationships are ‘true’ or ‘false’. We have to ask, rather, what it is that produces them and what is it that they serve to produce?” [1]

Thich Nhat Hanh elaborates a similar point with a metaphor: “When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and argument. That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change”

The idea of seeking understanding rather than trying to change, is the key to change.

This applies to religious trying to convert atheists, to atheists trying to convert religious, or anyone looking at someone else with opposite belief systems or value systems to them-self; it applies to looking at criminals and to lawyers; to men and women, Venus and Mars, and to anyone doing any action or maintaining any institution that you find loathsome, incomprehensible or outright strange.

There is a reason that a person thinks what they think and does what they do. Even  sociopaths and psychopaths have some kind of justification for their actions – justifications which have developed through some kind of process.

Look at the outside influences and ask: who gains?  Seek understanding of the reasons for the strangeness, without blame, and (according to the book I’m reading) this is the key to change.

EG – how do you understand the situations below?

References:

[1] David Harvey 1973 p 298; quoted in David Pepper, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism (London: Routledge, 1989).)

Truth

Am I a Feminist?

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

“There are three problems in this world…” Sekai Holland opened her speech “1. men, 2. men, and 3. men.” [1]

“Feminism” is an interesting word. In my ignorance it used to bring to mind images of men-hating women demanding to work, wear suits, and take off their bras. The idea of studying feminism or being a feminist was as foreign to me as studying astronomy and being an alien. Born in 1982 I missed the fight for women’s rights and, without giving it a moment of appreciation, I have reaped the benefits of it.

In time and with education, my understanding of the most successful movement of last century has evolved. I am now filled with gratitude to the courage of feminists: their fight for women’s respect, for women’s right to vote, and for women to have more say in the direction they want to take their lives.

One look at the political and corporate world we see the difference they have made – the scene has clearly changed since the days of Mad Men. Australia even has a female Prime Minister! That being said there’s still the long way left to go – women’s salaries are still far lower then mens, and the % of men to women in roles of governance and corporate rule are still not in a good way.

With these ideas running through my mind, I find myself wondering: am I a feminist?

Given I like men, hate suits, and appreciate a good bra, there’s a part of me that finds this a strange question to be thinking about.

Yet without a doubt when it comes to equality of wages and opportunities, protection from rape, power to choose divorce, abortion, playing sports, and bounds of research has found that the feminine approach to most matters is more peaceful than the masculine, it would seem that I am a feminist. Why then do I feel so weird about this word?

It is most likely inherited from a backlash against feminism via the media re-framing the movement after the war. Bell Hooks talks briefly about it here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQUuHFKP-9s[/youtube]

Sure I understand the argument for “traditional roles”: looking after the children, cleaning, cooking – these are important and rewarding tasks for humans. But I don’t think this need be specifically a woman’s roles. I’d be quite happy if my partner were a “stay-at-home-Dad” if it meant I could continue to research and write while he did the housework.

The big problem I have with feminism is that I don’t like polarising men. They’re not all bad 😉 And those that are, it’s not their fault. We have all been “thrown” into this “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” world. It’s not a fixed state, but is changing as I type, and as you read. In the past violence may have the best way to solve conflict, and to maintain peace within a society.

Now, survival of those fittest (as in “best-suited”) for our changing global environment, requires intuitive, long-term, non-violent means to end cycles of violence, get rid of nuclear weapons, and develop agricultural and economic structures that suit our holistic needs as a species. The yin, the feminine, needs to weave it’s way back into the spheres of society that have been too long dominated by yang, the masculine.

So, in answer to my question: am I a feminist? If I’m honest with myself, ignoring the stereotype and the fact that I might be categorised as a humanist, a panentheist, and many other “-ists” as well, I suppose I have to say yes – I am a feminist— I like living in a world where women are treated (almost) equally to men, and the more equal women and men are treated throughout the world, the better a world it will be.

References:
[1] My colleagues were in Zimbabwe announcing Senator Sekai Holland as the recipient-to-be of the 2012 Sydney Peace Prize.

 

 

Academic, Truth,

Narrative as Ethics

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

After yesterday’s encounter with Mr Moron, I mean, Mr Maroon, a religious fanatic arguing that Atheist’s have no code for morality, I want to take a deeper look at ethics and morality from both a religious and secular perspective.

Given my research into the role of narratives in peace studies, I ask: What is the role of narrative in our ethics?

Mr Maroon was holding up his ethical code – the Christian bible – and asking for Atheists to hold up theirs.

“I have the Bible. Atheists have nothing. Atheists have no moral code. I win. You lose.”

A black and white question like that is hard to respond to. Is it A or B? Well what if there’s also a C, D, E or Z?

It’s like the argument “Jesus must have been a liar, a lunatic or Lord” – it starts from a base full of assumptions, and posits three options that ignore the grey. It ignores the humanity of the writers of the Bible, the contradictions between gospels, the hundreds of books left out of the bible. It ignores the option that Jesus could have also been a great teacher, that the stories are part legend, at times drawing on myth to make points that are more true than literal truth. It ignores the historical context that the stories were told, that the chapters were recorded, and the book was edited and translated and interpreted today. I digress.

No, Atheists do not have a book of absolute, unquestionable and unchanging ethical codes. That’s why they put an end to slavery. That’s why women and children are now treated like people. That’s why philosophers are continue to asking and re-ask: what is the “good life” we are aspiring to? and how can we live the good life with others, in just institutions?

For Mr Maroon, not having one book of unchanging ethics (whether they are cherry-picked from or not) is a sign of weakness, a sign of lacking morality, when in fact it is the opposite.

Ethics are not fixed, and the second they seem fixed then we really must be on guard!

Ethics come from culture, and return to culture, as a result of human evaluation and human mediation. We inherit their gifts, and their debts.

Of course Atheists, in rejecting the narrative of a separate “God” watching over us, haven’t thrown the baby out with the bath water. No matter one’s theological understanding, the cultural heritage (for better or worse) remains with us. In fact, critiques of environmental destruction point the finger at secular ethics being too rooted in biblical ethics. That is, the notion of us being separate individuals that will one day die was seeded in certain religious narratives (pre-dating Christianity, mind you), that have caused us to think ourselves separate from the ecological systems we cannot live without. But again, I digress.

The culturally-based notions of ethics and our entire ways of being, were evolving long before the Old Testament and long after the writing of the New Testament, are (lucky for us) still evolving today.

What is ethical and what is not is something we must constantly question, evaluate, adjust and re-evaluate.

The stories that were transmitted orally then recorded in text – histories, myths and fictions – have been, and still are, the basis of our morality, and deeper than that, our ethics. From these stories have sprung some of the most rotten and some of the most ripe fruits humanity has bore. The Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, slavery, war, extreme injustices and destruction, can be attributed to stories gone wrong, that have caused actions with horrible consequences – be they intended or not. Religious, political, fictional narratives contain power to bring pleasures and power to bring pain.

Narratives in books, films, songs, and conversation, allow us to imagine ourselves in different situations and imagine how we would like to be treated if that were us. Narratives of history allow us to see the devastation that not questioning certain narratives can be.

Let’s refer to Mr Maroon’s example of the killing of Jews in WW2: those living in Europe who accepted the narratives of their time and obeyed the law as if it were ethical, played a role in the destruction. Those who conformed rather than caused conflict about them, are the reason that such a horrible things were allowed to occur.

[1]

Others, like my Opa who (working in Holland at the time) said “no, it is NOT ethical to give Jews an identification with a big J on it as this will increase their chances of being taken away” and proceeded to work for the underground producing fake-IDs for Jews – was acting far more ethically than had he followed the moral of obeying the law.

As a side-note, given the common misconception, it is worth mentioning that Hitler’s religious views are a matter of dispute. While it is common to think of Hitler as an Atheist, given that before WW2 he was promoting “Positive Christianity” – was a Nazi brand of Christianity purged of Jewish elements – and that his book and public speeches often affirmed his Christian faith… maybe that’s a judgement worth rethinking.[2]

Ok, given all my tangents, let me sum up the above:

1. Ethics are not fixed – they should always be questioned or else bad things can be done in the name of ethics (slavery, murder, …) This requires a learning to think critically, and conflict rather than conform when it is necessary.

2. Atheists, theists, panentheists – people following any theology or lack of – require this constant re-evaluation of ethics and their moral application and implications.

3. Narratives are a useful way for this evaluation via imaginative variations to occur.

 

References:

Paul Ricoeur’s book Oneself as Another among other books and podcasts on philosophy I’m into atm.

[1] Picture taken from http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/photos-papers-propaganda-3-reich/jewish-identity-card-w-info-death-owner-9814-2/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Truth, , , , ,