skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As a review, the moralistic fallacy is the mental error which causes one to think that because a certain proposition is "good" or "right" or "moral", it must also be true/natural. (This is opposed to the naturalistic fallacy, which conversely states that what is natural must inherently be good) It has been stated most succinctly as: What ought to be, is.
Of course, we think of the moralistic fallacy primarily in two contexts: One is the fallacious justification of a belief in God because "religion makes people happy" -- a premise whose truth or falsity I am not yet convinced of either way, but in any case, the conclusion does not follow from it anyway. The other context where you often hear the moralistic fallacy is in regards to human nature, where, for example, it is insisted for political reasons that there is no biological differences in the brains of men and women, a claim which is demonstrably false.
As a side note, a danger of the moralistic fallacy in the latter context is that we can lose track of the real reason why what ought to be ought to be. In the example I gave above, men and women should still be evaluated on equal terms1 because a) individual variations are broad enough that judging by generalization rather than case-by-case is woefully inefficient, and b) in any case most of us (including me) would perceive it as grossly unfair to judge an individual based on generalizations. Hinging our justification for equal treatment of women on the false idea that there are no biological gender differences is dangerous to say the least.
But that's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the possibility of nontheists and skeptics employing the moralistic fallacy, something we don't usually think about. The reason I want to talk about this is because two events in the past twenty-four hours reminded me that we can be just as guilty of this fallacy as anyone.
The first was a post at Bruce Hood's blog where he discusses a new paper in PLoS by Sam Harris, et al., that happens to mention Bruce's SuperSense theory. (I still have not read the book, and now I'm bogged down in Guns, Germs, and Steel!) I'll quote Bruce here:
However, Harris and colleagues’s discussion of my hypothesis (never a theory till proven) in the current paper that beliefs are a combination of intuitive reasoning embedded in culture is somewhat misrepresented...I was pleased that Harris and colleagues acknowledge the supersense hypothesis but a bit dismayed when they dismissed it with the straw man statement, “Whatever the evolutionary underpinnings of religion, it seems unlikely that there is a genetic explanation for the why the French, Swedes, and Japanese tend not to believe in the God of Abraham while Americans, Saudis, and Somalis do.”
Well dah. Come on Sam, I am not like the others. You didn’t read the book-did you? I made it perfectly clear that just as any child is innately endowed to acquire a language, there is no genetic basis for French. What we need to know is why some people believe and some don’t even when they are raised in the same exact environment. That cannot just be culture.
Now this may not quite be the moralistic fallacy in action -- it is possible that Harris et al grossly misinterpreted Bruce's work out of sloppiness or something. But given some of the nasty responses regarding SuperSense, I suspect that there is a tendency on the part of nontheists and antireligionists -- yes, even luminaries like Harris -- to think, "Well, religion is bad, therefore it cannot be natural!" Surely Harris did not articulate it to himself as such, but I wonder if some similar impulse drove him to dismiss the SuperSense hypothesis without due consideration.
I admit that I myself engage in a more guarded version of this, not so much in regards to the question of whether religion is "natural", but in regards to whether people "need" comforting illusions. I take the position that, until I see convincing proof that people need these illusions, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that adults are capable of living with reality. I may turn out to be wrong, but this is my default position in the absence of highly convincing proof.
The second event that got me to think was a guy over in some of the comment threads at Orac's blog -- whom I later suspected to be a troll, but he got me thinking anyway -- who was going on this huge attack about how "new atheists" are irrational, despite proclaiming to be an "old-school" atheist himself. His central point was rather bizarre: he spent at least half a day arguing that memes are bullshit, that everyone knows memes are bullshit, that even Dawkins knows memes are bullshit but that he employs them in anti-theistic arguments anyway, and that therefore any atheist who admired Dawkins for anything other than his strict biological work is just as irrational as any theist.
It's probably true that people of all stripes -- skeptics and atheists included -- are indeed rather irrational a shocking amount of the time... and judging by the reaction of folks who have read SuperSense, I suspect when I finally get around to reading it, I may be rather disturbed at just how much. Or maybe I already have an idea... In any case, I don't dispute that point. But I think the troll's argument is still a bit whack, and in any case, it is my feeling that the "new atheists" at least put a high value on rationality, and that even if we don't always succeed, that has to count for something.
I also mentioned to the troll that I thought another important difference was that atheists don't typically go around executing homosexuals, lopping off girls' clitorises, and crashing planes into buildings. His response had me really scratching my head:
scientific studies have shown that religion has been shown to be a NEGATIVE predictor of violence and terrorism
He didn't bother to back this up with any links or citations, and I have a really, really, really hard time believing that religious belief is a negative predictor of terrorism (the only secular terrorist I can think of off the top of my head is McVeigh.. and I suppose maybe Che Guevera and his ilk). I do know some studies have shown religion to be a negative predictor of violence, but my impression has been that the data is mixed on this point (and in any case, as we all know, correlation does not prove causality, and I have heard it speculated that many of the apparent statistical benefits of religious belief only apply if your beliefs are the same as the norm in the society in which you inhabit, i.e. suggesting that the causality is more associated with the benefits of "going with the flow" than they are with religion per se).
But the troll's comment got me thinking anyway. I like to believe that atheism can be a positive and liberating philosophy. I look around at all the religiously-motivated violence, all of the spiritually-motivated quackery, etc., and I feel like I am right. But am I engaging in the moralistic fallacy here? I admit that I have a rather strong distaste not only for religious delusions, but for the trappings of religion themselves. Am I letting this distaste cloud my judgment? Is there a part of me saying to myself, "Atheism ought to be a better way to live one's life than theism, therefore it is?"
I'm not at all sure. And I think this is something we all ought to reflect on. The falsity of religious belief is not in doubt. But when we talk about the costs and benefits of religious belief, we should be careful not to let ourselves fall victim to the moralistic fallacy.
1The one defensible exception is in regards to competitive sports, where biological differences give men such an innate advantage in sports relying on muscle strength, body size, etc., that a gender-neutral league would preclude many talented women from participating. Even in that case, I generally favor a gender-neutral league running parallel to a women-only league, as opposed to there ever being a men-only league, thus still allowing women on the extremes of the bell curve to be judged as individuals and participate in the gender-neutral league. In addition, it allows sports with a lot of variation in the physical requirements of each position to invite more women into the gender-neutral league, e.g. while I think even in a society perfectly unbiased about gender we would still rarely if ever see a female offensive guard in the NFL (the men who play this position are already on the very extreme ends of the bell curve for their gender in regards to body mass), I would not be surprised to see a female kicker in the NFL within the next couple of decades, and someday probably even female wide receivers, quarterbacks, defensive backs, maybe even situational tight ends and running backs. Anyway, this is all a huge digression and not what I wanted to talk about!
Earlier today I watched the newest Pat Condell rant by following the link at richarddawkins.net. Then later, I happened to stumble on this blog post at the Archdiocese of Washington, written by a chap with the amusing name of Monsignor Pope. It's funny, because Msgr. Pope's post is pretty much engaging in exactly the kind of power play that Condell is lambasting.
If you don't want to watch it (even though you should) Condell's rant is about clergy, and one of his major points is that religions promise all of their rewards in the future, while in the present they ask for piety and subservience. This is obviously a transparent ploy to exercise power over people, while deferring delivery on your promises to a time when nobody will be able to complain. And boy howdy, I guess the Archdiocese of Washington was listening and decided Condell had a really good idea.
Msgr. Pope seems to have discovered a new vocabulary word: "Anthropocentric." Now, when I think of the relationship between religion and anthropocentrism, I always think of the incredible vanity of believing that an entire universe was created with the sole purpose of executing some ham-handed morality play centered around a blood sacrifice. But I guess that shows how much I know about theology, eh?
What the esteemed Monsignor thinks of when he hears "anthropocentrism", though, is not the childish assumption that the universe was created exclusively for us, but that we spend too much time thinking about our own lives and not on fellating Jesus glorifying God. Msgr. Pope also seems to view this as a bad thing...
The Monsignor's post is rather long, so I have severely condensed his three major talking points:
1. I often hear people say they don’t go to Church because they don’t “get anything out of it.” Perhaps they are looking for improved preaching, better choirs, or more fellowship....How about agreeing that the we go to Mass because God is worthy not simply because we get something out of it. An old Gospel hymn says, “Just forget about yourself and concentrate on Him (God) and worship him!”...
Uh huh... so the next time someone says, "But religion offers people comfort!", remember what Msgr. Pope has said here: If you aren't getting comfort and fulfillment from our Mass, well tough fucking luck, because it's not about you. It's about kissing God's ass. Or else.
2. Weddings are often another time where God seems quite forgotten...We can surely be joyful for the happy couple but how about a few accolades for God who pulled the whole thing off?
Yep, yet again, Invisible Sky Daddy gets all the credit. Have I mentioned before that I find that kind of thing highly offensive and deeply insulting to the people who actually did all the work? Oh, yes I have.
3. Funerals too can become too anthropocentric.
Oh, Monsignor, don't got there. Please, for the love of all that is good and decent, please do not go there.
I mean, he can't possibly be readying himself to say that the big problem with funerals is that they spend too much time honoring the deceased? Can he?!?
Yup:
Here too many funeral Masses and funeral tributes focus too much on what a great guy Joe was and how he loved the Redskins and loved to tell jokes etc. Some remarks about Joe’s faith and how God worked in his life may be appropriate but the fundamental purpose of the funeral Mass is to worship God and beseech his mercy...We ought to worship God and thank him for his mercy and grace at every funeral and recommit ourselves to Jesus.
Oh. My. Dog.
Listen, God-Pushers, if you're going to prey on the weak and insist that they spend all their time doing your bidding in exchange for some mythical reward that never comes, that's despicable enough. Please, have the basic common decency to let people grieve in peace, without having to exploit that too.
How ghoulish. I just don't even know what to say. Of course, I guess Msgr. Pope has already said everything that needs to be said, hasn't he?
Well, hopefully I’ve made my point.
Yes you have, Monsignor, yes you have...
I used to have some philosophical objections to a single payer health plan... even though I absolutely supported a universal health care initiative, single payer seemed like it created some situations that I would theoretically consider human rights issues, even though from a practical perspective I recognize that single payer delivers high quality results.
I was starting to change my mind over the past couple months as I started to notice a few perverse incentives in health care that seemingly could only be mitigated by single payer. I still wasn't sure, though...
Anyway, all of the above is a nuanced discussion that I may elaborate on tomorrow if I am in the mood for it. What has suddenly convinced me that single payer is a really good idea is much more present and visceral.
Now, I work at a major multinational corporation, I am a salaried employee, and I pay for the most comprehensive health plan my employer offers. While it is true that my employer got rid of all the HMOs a few years ago and now only offer PPOs (which are sweet because you can pick your own doctor with virtually no limitations, but which suck because you typically have to cover 20% of anything that is non-routine), I still think I have what would be considered pretty good health insurance. You better damn well believe I pay for it.
Total out-of-pocket costs for the birth of my first child: FOUR THOUSAND MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS.
It was supposed to be $1700. Things didn't quite go according to plan, but then again, it wasn't like it was a cesarean or required a visit to the NICU or anything. Pitocin induction, epidural, vaginal birth. We even left the hospital early.
The problem is, there isn't a single unified entity I can complain to. There are at least FOUR parties involved in this fuck-overage: The OB my wife was seeing initially, the midwife, the hospital where she gave birth, and the insurance thieves company.
If it was single payer, even if they decided to fuck me in the ass to the tune of 235% of the initial quote (and by the way, WHY THE FUCK is it legal for insurance companies and providers to conceal net prices from their customers???!?!?!??) at least then I could call somebody up and argue. As it is, basically all I can do is roll over and spread it.
So uh... if I put ads on this blog, will anybody click-through?
I have included tags so that both will start at about the equivalent point in the rant. Hit play on both at the same time, and prepare to be amazed. (You may have to up the volume on the Beck video in order to balance the two... sorry, the YouTube Embedded Player doesn't have any parameters to pre-set the volume!)
Via Hemant Mehta.
My first reaction to the news that the Vatican has issued a statement on priestly sex abuse that basically amounts to, "So what? All the churches are doing it!", was one of disgust. When it is revealed that one's organization is responsible for years of covering up sexual abuse, the appropriate response is not to point out that "only" 1 in 20 priests were involved in sexual abuse, or that clergy from other religions are just as guilty.
But maybe it will do some good in the long run. Clergy of all stripes are in a position of false authority, and worse than that, there is a default assumption that they are exemplars of morality, an assumption not granted to your average authority figure. So it seems quite plausible that clerical sex abuse could be a serious problem in most religions, if for no other reason than that clergy would typically have an easier time getting away with it. If the Vatican's desperate finger-pointing inspires investigation into the wrongdoings of other religions' clergy, that can only be a good thing.
I do want to highlight one particularly despicable thing from the Holy See's statement, though:
The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.
"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."
I actually think it's fair to distinguish between paedophilia and ephebophilia (though both are obviously terrible crimes), but what really bothers me is the phrase "sexual orientation minority." It seems like the Vatican is trying to co-opt the language of political correctness to somehow portray the priestly perps as an oppressed minority. Maybe next they can throw in with NAMBLA...
(For more lolgodz fun, check this old post)
Update: Since apparently I worship Darwin (why didn't anybody tell me I had to worship Darwin when I enlisted to be a Militant Atheist?), I decided to rise to Dembski's challenge and do some "blasphemy" about old Chuckie as well:
I just drove by a local barbecue place called Sticky Lips, and was chagrined to see that their marquee reads "BBQ and Baptism -- Congrats (so-and-so)!". I would have tried to take a picture, but I didn't want to crash my car. heh...
So that was groan-worthy, but on the way back to work I was pondering exactly why it bothers me. I mean, we should all coexist, right? They aren't directing anything at me, they are just very publicly congratulating a friend on getting baptized, which is just some thing that they do. Why should that effect me? How would I like it if people took offense to my hobbies?
And then I figured it out: It's because the implication is that baptism is necessary for salvation. So while it sounds innocent enough -- "Congratulations!" -- the subtext is "All of you unbaptized heathens are going to burn!"
I suppose it's possible they don't actually think that, but then that raises the question, why baptize in the first place? If you show me someone who really just thinks baptism is a fun thing to do in their spare time, and doesn't believe I will suffer any ill effects from avoiding it, then I guess that's just fine. But until then, I'm gonna keep being offended by signs about "BBQ and baptism".
