Doubting Marcus

The Label Wars

The game goes like this: That group has some people who are jerks, therefore I don’t want to be associated with that group and refuse the label even if by every reasonable definition I am a part of that group.

This isn’t a plea to ignore the existence of hate groups or bigotry, rather this is about the unwarranted but self-aided branding which happens when a cruel or foolish minority within a group causes other members of that group to refrain from identifying with it so they won’t be seen as associated with this cruelty. Of course how we choose to label ourselves is our choice to make, as is how large a minority of idiots we are willing to put up with while retaining the label, but abandoning labels when you are already a member of a disliked minority group has consequences. Besides the obvious linguistic problems of communication, both within group and to outsiders, you quite possibly face the further alienation and could in fact set yourself back.

Refusing to identify as a member of a group because some people within it are jerks or bigots is a sure way to make these individuals seem more prevalent or speak for the group as a whole. This brings with it the distinct chance that this group, and its associated label, will get even more hate which could end up setting back all associated causes, including whatever new label the escapees chose to adopt.

If I wasn’t laying it on thick enough by now, and though this applies to other groups as well, I’m talking about atheists who refuse the label because some people who are atheists are also terrible people. I’ve had atheists flatly tell me that they don’t identify as an atheist because some prominent member, or sub-group, of those communities is dishonest, bigoted, etc. Besides being linguistically bizarre (think “I’m not liberal because Bill Maher is an asshole”), I think this is poor strategy and, ironically, sets the stage for the types of endless rebranding and splitting you see in religions. It’s unfortunate but there are popular sexist atheists who will say horrible things about women and yes there are atheists who are just about as bad at reasoning as religious apologists but I don’t think that’s a good reason to abandon the label to the dark side.

Labels capture very little of who we are, and we shouldn’t expect them to do much more, however I just don’t think letting atheists become more associated with hate and stupidity is going to help secular people as a group overturn the death grip religion has on society.

Paul Ryan on Science and Secular Issues

The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s vice president has already been diced a thousand ways in less than 24 hours but there’s been little about his stance on science and, naturally, less about his stance regarding issues of separation of church and state both of which I’m very interested in. So here’s my first glance look at him on these topics now that he’s on national stage.

Hemant Mehta has already pointed out that the Secular Coalition for America gave Ryan an F for his 2011 congressional voting record as he voted for measures which create religious interference in U.S. policies at home and abroad. However what’s more concerning to me is not his values, but his abuse of a media controversy in 2009 to argue against the legitimacy of climate change. While Romney has been short of the facts on climate change, he acknowledges it’s happening and that humans are playing some role (at least he did) but he refuses to say what role, Ryan was among those who was cavalierly parading those (now) long refuted quotes from hacked emails as reason to cast doubt on climate science saying:

These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.

The CRU e-mail scandal reveals a perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion. The e-mail scandal has not only forced the resignation of a number of discredited scientists, but it also marks a major step back on the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific community. While interests on both sides of the issue will debate the relevance of the manipulated or otherwise omitted data, these revelations undermine confidence in the scientific data driving the climate change debates.

As Michael Cote at Climate Adaptation notes this was in the immediate wake of the story breaking and Ryan has not again spoke up about climate change, presumably he wouldn’t double down on his error today. However, it’s just stunningly wrong about almost everything, and contra Cote, saying scientists were intentionally misleading the public is conspiratorial (though certainly not James Inhofe level). Moreover the fact that it was a genuine controversy in the media doesn’t much comfort me about Ryan’s understanding of how science works or its place in political policy.

Lastly, I’ve been somewhat disappointed with Google for being unable to come up with even a single statement from Ryan on his stance on the teaching evolution versus intelligent design. However barring a tragic passing of Mitt Romney it won’t matter much in policy (it’s unlikely the Senate will consider an anti-evolution bill so his potentially tie-breaking vote as VP won’t matter). Romney is actually very strong in his support of evolution, beating back efforts to teach intelligent design while he was governor. Overall though, given the broad anti-science climate in current American politics, while I’d like much better it definitely could be worse.

The (Current) Morality of This Atheist: Contractarianism

*This may be more clear with the preamble

As an atheist when I point out something brutal and cruel in religious books or practices I’m often told that I am incapable of declaring actions wrong without religion or that I’m using the standard of a certain religion’s proposed god to judge them as everything would be subjective. I’d venture to say almost all nonbelievers have heard such claims and if you are a nonbeliever but haven’t yet just wait a while. Suffice it to say these aren’t very convincing arguments against atheists having morals that aren’t completely subjective but accounting just where our sense of morality comes from is rather difficult. It’s sometimes challenging to even know where to begin but the following is an account of morality that theists and atheists alike can use that I find plausible.

If you are going to form any system of morality at the most basic level you must define the relevant terms. If right or wrong and moral and immoral are to mean anything at all they must be clearly defined with functional meanings. It gets us nowhere to just say something is wrong because it is bad or because we ought not do it and likewise that something is right because it is good or because we ought do it. Instead we must give these words meanings which are not circular and at the broadest level you can say “right actions” are those that help and “wrong actions” are those that harm. More specifically actions that are moral promote well-being, which may be happiness or health, minimize unnecessary suffering or are some combination of the two. Immoral actions do the opposite as they reduce well-being, increase unnecessary suffering or both.

Even given these terms one can easily say what does it mean to say that an action is objectively right or wrong? It means that these reasons which are not based upon the caprice of individuals desires or goals because there are reasons to do them which are independent of any individual’s opinion. This is not to say that what someone thinks about the actions they perform doesn’t affect how we judge that act but simply these reasons exist to behave in a particular manner exist even though certain individuals may be unaware of them (of course if no one is aware of the reasons then the duties are nonexistent). For example murder is wrong because it harms another person or more specifically because it reduces well-being and increases suffering. This is not a subjective opinion about murder causing suffering but rather an objective fact about the act of murder. Though we could make an unending list of actions which would fit a similar description which would not be contingent truths about morality, still one may wonder where exactly these rules originate from or what more foundational basis exists for morality.

Read More

The (Current) Morality of This Atheist: A Preamble

Before I can give what I find to be a reasonable account of morality there are several things that need to be stated out front: With regards to the is-ought problem I don’t think a self-sustaining ought can ever be derived from an is. If you continue to dig far enough I think there will always come a point at which I can not tell you why humanity should ultimately value one thing over another but if this is a problem it is a problem inherit in any system of morality. All choices and actions we make are dependent on the desired outcome which tells us nothing at all about whether or not we ought value these outcomes. At this point, despite the fact that it’s been demonstrated that objective morality can not come from a god, a theist might say they have a stronger baseline for objective morality because provided a god exists humans ought to do what god wants.

However, the appeal to a god gets one no closer to resolving the is-ought problem as one could easily ask why we should value what god wants us to do and similar questions ad infinitum in the same manner that could be done when considering secular morals. At some point certain axiomatic values about desires or goals must be assumed. A typical theistic response when asked “Why what god wants is good?” is to appeal to a circular definition in which this god is defined as containing basic goodness itself essentially stating “We should value what god wants because god is good.” That’s no different then saying we should value goodness because “goodness is good.” 

With all of that said, I do think that there are certain things which are objectively right or wrong in the sense there are non-subjective reasons to do them provided certain desires we have as humans. This entire case will be built on the assumption that having good reasons or bad reasons to perform an action matters as I can not possibly demonstrate that to be the case. I can show that without that value there are certain consequences that may apply but I can not demonstrate that you should care about these consequences and it doesn’t appear anyone else can no matter what system of morality is being proposed. What will follow is my very non-original case for that kind of practical objectivity given that fundamental starting point. I neither expect everyone to be convinced by this account nor do I expect my opinions on all the details will be permanently unchanged as I still have quite a bit of reading to do on this topic before I come to that type of conclusion.

My exposition on morality

_____________________

*Last Edited 12/1/11