27 April 2008

Battle of Morality: Good vs Evil

I've long thought of Agnosticism as the lazy thinker's way out of cerebral toil. Whilst not personally sharing the militant atheism of Richard Dawkins, I had concluded before I read his fascinating book, The God Delusion, that people who declared there might or might not be a divine being, were as bad as those who caught splinters sitting on the political fence. Surely if the agnostic in question has delved into the history of man's belief in Gods and the religious and cultural evolution of such concepts, then there would appear to those with doubt, that indeed God does not exist, except as a mental construct. Add to the melting pot, the imperfections of life, from the mass extinctions through to the tendency for one in three people to get cancer in their life times, then one has to ponder that if there is a God, He is as imperfect as we are, and therefore not worthy of praise and worship.

I might be seen to be attacking Theists but that is not my agenda. In my view, religious belief in a higher being is perfectly natural to humanity and it is therefore pointless and perhaps damaging to fight against such a phenomenon. If a person is to hold a devout belief in God, whilst I might disagree, they are at least prepared to sink and lay foundations of moral absolutes and principles.

We've been taught in modern society that there is no such thing as right or wrong, only different perceptions. I fully believe this nihilist relativism is in danger of undermining our identity, our cultures, our principles and indeed our freedoms. When we cannot be prepared to stand up for something that is morally right, of which I believe there is only one course, then our whole system is weak to the attack of those with wrong, but unfortunately strong, moralistic absolutisms.

When we start to equate Islamic suicide bombers to noble and brave freedom fighters, or the Communist tyrant Fidel Castro to a saviour of his people, then we must assume our morals are in danger of rotting away. In my humble opinion, it is a mixture of self-gratifying pomposity and dire intellectual fraud to suppose the 'rights' we have cultivated over centuries are open to question from the morally corrupt and retrograde forces of, for example, Socialism, or worst still, Islamism.

Whilst a belief in God is not a necessity, the concept of the religiously inspired battle of 'good versus evil' is vital. There is not, in my eyes, a giant intellect in the Universe setting the standards of what is right or wrong. However, if democratic and free values are to be defended on our insignificant planet, then humanity in the West must grasp and champion the morally correct universal human rights set out in both the Judeo-Christian scriptures, in the works of the Philosophers of old and indeed, the likes of the American Constitution.

Otherwise we let our comfortable Liberalism self defeat itself and open the doors to those with no doubts about what is right and wrong, but who are in fact, entirely morally bankrupt.

20 comments:

paisley said...

excellent thought pattern,, and most interesting of topics... my problem has never been with a god figure,, be it real or imagined... my problem enters the picture when men created god in their likeness.. and then fight to preserve face....

Lord Nazh said...

by your comment paisley, you do have a problem with G-d (real or imagined) since only an imagined G-d could be created in man's image.

Beaman: Good post, but I would point out that without the religious thoughts of good and evil, the nihilist relativism will triumph. Without the hope/fear of the life after death scenario, it will/is all too easy to pass things off as 'other peoples ways' instead of confronting them.

I'm not trying to convert you :) just pointing out the process (mine) of getting to right and wrong is centered on and deeply rooted in my belief in G-d and His path.

Amina said...

very good post and interesting thesis, though u didn't really prove ur atheistic attitude. btw, i just wonder, since u don't believe in God, do u believe in satan...u should, he believes in you :p from satanistic philosophical aspect good relies on evil...according to them evil is the father of good, without good evil still exists but not vice versa. what do you think of that? and what is good and what is bad in a first place? it is so relative matter, that comes under subjective look for everyone one of us. for that invention called law and religion was made, to indicate, guide, recognize and distinguish so called good and evil, but without own share, it doesn't really work

Americaneocon said...

I firmly believe there's an ultimate good in the universe, and I also believe that the Christian democratic West best represents it.

I like this part from your post:

"There is not, in my eyes, a giant intellect in the Universe setting the standards of what is right or wrong. However, if democratic and free values are to be defended on our insignificant planet, then humanity in the West must grasp and champion the morally correct universal human rights set out in both the Judeo-Christian scriptures, in the works of the Philosophers of old and indeed, the likes of the American Constitution."

If there's no "giant intellectual," there is the "force," and it's with us.

Beaman said...

Paisley: Thank you :-)

Lord Nazh: Regarding your comments about the religious concepts of good and evil, I quite agree! However I would add a wider range of teachings and wisdom outside the bible.

Whilst I do not believe in life after death myself, I can see the benefits such a belief system holds to morality. That being said, it's also perfectly possible to keep to correct morality without such a belief system and indeed could be argued, even wiser. To do something or keep to something due to the fear of the consequences cannot inherently be filled with wisdom and good. Although, I freely admit, it is a vital concept for a lot of humanity to adhere too.

Amina: No, I am not a satanist. :-p I think good and evil are human-made constructs but nevertheless, they exist and there are absolutes which are vital for our Western societies. One might argue that since I don't believe in God, then my concepts of 'good' and 'evil' must be weak or diluted or even relativist. However, that is not true. The Judeo-Christian belief system has merely, in my eyes, provided what humanity itself has constructed as the ideal. Then I add other sources along with it.

Americaneocon: I agree completely. The Judeo-Christian democratic West is the pinnacle of human endeavour and society. The ultimate good. The force is certainly with us and ideally how the rest of the world should be.

Amina said...

I didn't imply u r an satanist :) plus i do believe, person can himself recognize right from wrong...law n religion was made just as a security band, to help and give ready product- codex of behaving that wouldn't harm others nor oneself. all together, I know u r nice guy...for that I like u soooooo much.

Baht At said...

judeo-christian scriptures? Those would be the same nutjob abrahamic faith ideas that muslims follow?

I have to say that anyone claiming that universal human rights are set out in judeo-christian scriptures has forgotten about most of modern history.

neoconstant said...

Great post--am publishing on revamped NeoConstant site...let me know if that's a problem (or if you'd like to ever cross-post there in the future!)

I agree that the combination of Christian morality and liberal democracy has proved to be the greatest triumph of human civilization thus far--regardless of what other nonsense comes packaged with religion...

Beaman said...

Amina: I know, I was just kidding. ;)

Baht At: The Judeo-Christian scriptures have shaped the very cultures and values we must hold dear.

The Golden Rules - the ethic of reciprocity - (which is not found in Islam) has been vital to our social evolution.

The Ten Commandments. One does not need to be religious to respect what Judeo-Christianity has given to us all in the West.

Neoconstant: I would be delighted. I've been in contact.

Baht At said...

The ethic of reciprocity - that would be and eye for an eye and similar primitive concepts so favoured by the genocidal regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv would it? (BTW I know that you are referring to the treat your neighbour blah..... which is just a woolly liberal restatement of an eye for an eye)

I don't doubt you believe the lies you read on your favourite neocon sites but please tell me which idiot said that this rule wasn't in Islam?

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself"

"Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer; treat well as a neighbor the one who lives near you, that you may be a Muslim [one who submits to God]."

It seems that not only are you a neocon in your views but also in your actions in that you mislead in their best tradions.

A simple statement that you lied in your previous response to me will suffice.

Beaman said...

The Golden Rule is a universal message encompassing the whole of humanity. The Islamic verses you have quoted are aimed purely at fellow Muslim brethren.

By the way, the verses you gave are from the Hadith which come second to the Koran. They are also merely 'attributed'. If you could find the exact Hadith verse number and book for these quotes of yours I would be most grateful. :)

Baht At, you can accuse me of lies and misinformation all you want, but at least have the decency before you do so in the future to know what you are talking about.

P.s. Wikipedia is not the best of sources.

Baht At said...

Of you mean that you don't worry about what's in the "New Testament of the Koran"? But if we ignored the new testament and the talmud then judeo-christians would be consider barbaric.

BTW the wikipedia article cross references nicely to the hadith so if you could be bothered all the proof you need is there.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Very interesting post, Beaman and I am sorry I have come to it late. As a woman of peace, I have no religion and sometimes that is a hard route to follow. I'm inclined to agree with Baht At here.

Beaman said...

Baht At: What 'New Testament of the Koran'? Are you saying the Hadith is that? The Koran takes precedent over anything else and as I have said, there is no Golden Rule in the Koran.

The Koran, especially the latter verses chronologically chastises non-Muslims and urges warfare against them. Where did Jesus in the New Testament ever call for warfare?

Yes, Christians have proved violent and intolerant in the name of Christianity but it is safe to say they have twisted and missed the true teachings of the New Testament. However much you may want a relativist spin on things, this cannot be said of violence in the name of Islam.

Welshcakes: I have no religion either and seek world peace. But I can't ignore the facts from different scriptures that is the basis much much of the violence against the West and Jews.

Ruggedtouch said...

Great comments, Beaman.

The people of the modern left have the fire of the true believer burning in their hearts, fueled by a hundred years of flawed social science à la Franz Boas, Margaret Meade, and B.F. Skinner. They live in the imaginary world of the blank slate and the noble savage. A world of relativism and a condescending blanket assessment of any non-white people as inherently repressed, aggrieved, and pure—untarnished by the callous, destructive avarice of imperialistic white European/Anglo culture. This bizarre worldview, contrary to liberal democracy, leads to a balkanization of all the world's peoples through the folly of multiculturalism. When the left insists on all cultures being of equal merit and value, this leads to a fundamental collapse of norms, values, and guidelines by which to measure members of the global community.

Moral equivalence and moral relativism, in essence, lead to a hopelessly confusing nihilism of amorality. In a rational and moral world, we must be free to reasonably and ethically make firm judgments about right and wrong—even when it offends people.

Nothing displays this dynamic more conspicuously than the dopey video messages to the evil white Westerners starring that hero of the Arab/Muslim world, Ayman al-Zawahiri. It's the same droning on about the glorious islamist Holy warriors™ and their happy-fun murder activities. In the lilt of a true believer, he poetically contemplates the evil of America. One can almost hear silly marching band soundtrack in the background that one imagines to be the music played for mujahideen graduation day, along with the stirring staccato of Kalashnikov fire.

He's definitely found his audience in the eager, if vacant, minds of the Western left, and he's learned to speak in terms that are consonant with their warped values. I.e., baseless claims of empire and top-down plots and schemes against the noble savages (for oil), vilification of Israelis, weird conspiracy theories, hatred of the West along with the attendant suggestion of self-abnegation (it was you who voted these wicked people into office!), canards, non sequiturs, red herrings, and catchy bumper sticker one-liners of Western/America/Jooooo/democracy scorn.

It's a veritable cornucopia of common cause between the loopy moonbats of America and the holy warriors of the death cult. I swear, I think Noam Chomsky, John Esposito, and Michael Moore all got together to write the crap that al-Zawahiri sprouts.


The Koran played absolutely no part whatsoever in shaping Western civilization (thank goodness), while the Bible performed a vital role. In fact, the medieval doctrine enshrined in the Islamic hate manual—which is still interpreted literally by Muslims—is completely hostile to the rights and laws that our courts are charged with protecting and upholding. Whether or not you believe in the Bible's spiritual components is, in a court of law, not as important as whether you believe in the democratic principles its moral teachings helped to forge. And Muslims do not believe in those principles.

Louis said...

I think your distiction between Judeo-Christian prinsiples and the Islamic principles are questionable. I believe the golden rule, although existing in Judaism, prior to Jesus's teachings, were only applicable to fellow Jews and possibly assimilated aliens living among them. I am sure Islam is no different in this regard. Indeed, as opposed to Judeo-Christian freedom, you could talk about Judeo-Islamic principles being at the heart of religious warfare and bigotry that is prevalent in the Middle-East. I personally believe Judaism is closer to Islam than it is to Christianity, but less dangerous in the sense that it does not actively seek to convert followers. The problems only occurs if you happen to live in land that Jews claims as their own.

Ruggedtouch said...

Louis -

I’d disagree with your disagreement.

There is nothing in either Judaism or Christianity that mandates the borderline OCD behaviors required in Islam. These behaviors could fill books. Wait... they do fill books. In addition, there is nothing in either Judaism or Christianity that mandates the visceral hatred for non-believers that exists in islam. There is no conception of jihad in either Judaism or Christianity.

Islam’s jihad is diffuse, universal, and self-reliant in a localized way. Al-Qaeda is just a name. So are Islamic Jihad, Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas), Abu Sayyaf, Tanzim Qa'idat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), Hizbullah, Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon (the Muslim Brotherhood), and countless others. As much as we Westerners like our information and our lives to be neatly compartmentalized and labeled, jihad is amorphous, messy, and nameless. Whatever name you call it, it always means the same thing: Kill the infidels who stand between Islam and its delusions of world supremacy.

These people are not "made" by U.S. foreign policy, they are only mobilized by it when it resists them, and the names they operate under are subordinate to the cause of their ideology. That ideology, of course, is jihad—warfare to expand the dominion of Allah's religion, as elucidated in the Koran. That's the root cause.
It is jihad, not exotic and menacing Arabic titles, that is the enemy of Western civilization—indeed of all non-Islamic civilizations. Jihad is an integral part of mainstream Islamic doctrine, and it always has been. Islam is not a religion of peace, and never has been. Its borders have been bloody since its inception, and will stay that way unless one of three things happens:
1. a spectacular and absolute annihilation of Islam's ability to wage jihad (including ideological jihad, hearts and minds, etc.)
2. the establishment of worldwide khilfah (Islamic rule under a caliph)
3. a top to bottom reform of Islam's core principles, followed by a long overdue enlightenment of the ummah (Muslim nation/community)
Other than that, you can be sure that Islam's holy war will just grind on and on because Allah has thus ordained it, and only a fool would make the mistake of thinking that the mujahideen aren't hardcore true believers. To die a martyr while fighting in the service of Allah's religion is the highest honor, and is rewarded with instant access to paradise (everyone else has to wait until judgment day), where the mujahid/shahid (holy warrior/martyr) will enjoy a hedonistic orgy of sex with scores of eternal virgins, wine (nonalcoholic, of course) and gastronomic bliss forever and ever, amen. Plus, he can intercede to get seventy of his family members and homeboys into this afterlife V.I.P. party.

Louis said...

"In addition, there is nothing in either Judaism or Christianity that mandates the visceral hatred for non-believers that exists in islam."

Deuteronomy 7:1-6, for example, instructs the Jews to destroy their enemies totally and show them no mercy. Their children are ordered not to intermarry and their sacred stones must be destroyed. Why? Because they are the chosen people of God. Sound familiar?

Leviticus 19:18 18 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.' I would be pleased to be corrected, but I believe this is the closest to the Golden rule in the Old Testament. Quoting Beaman above "The Islamic verses you have quoted are aimed purely at fellow Muslim brethren." Where could they have got that idea from?

These are by no means selective verses. The superiotity of the Jews pervades the entire Old Testamnet and is also visible in the New Testament with the early church. For example, Jesus initially refuses to heal a Syro-Phoenician womens daughter, saying he came for the children and not for the dogs (Matthew 15:21-28). Paul tells us that Peter acted hypocritically by not eating with gentiles when he was with the presence of fellow Jews (Galatians 2:11-14). However, even Paul himself, after conversion, claimed there was a distinction between Jews and Gentiles which influenced how quickly rewards and punishments were meted out (Roman 2:9-10).

This all sounds terribly like an anti-semitic diatribe, but it is not supposed to be. I am trying to show you that the Islam you detest is a more natural consequence of Judaism (and to a lesser extent Christianity)than modern liberal democracy.

Ruggedtouch said...

I certainly wouldn’t argue that both Judaism and Christianity (more so Christianity), were both nasty and violent. And I should have qualified my comment ”In addition, there is nothing in either Judaism or Christianity that mandates the visceral hatred for non-believers that exists in islam." with the modifier “There is currently nothing…"

My mistake.

Christianity and Judaism, as we know, met with reform and enlightenment. In short, they grew up, and became a positive force for civilization and progress worldwide. In fact, both were instrumental in shaping the social climate which fostered the freedoms, science, and prosperity of Western civilization. Islam, on the other hand, is stuck fast in the hateful, violent medieval mindset which spawned it. Islam's holy warriors, united under their ersatz Saladin, Osama bin Laden, still fancy themselves to be fighting the Christian invaders in the name of their deity. To this day, the wounded adolescent pride of Islam is still seething for revenge. In God's name, of course.
Islam is only 1300 years old, and behaves precisely like a 1300 year old religion has been known to behave. Christianity and Judaism were violent religious entities when they were 1300 years old too, still too throttled by childish superstitions and “us vs. them” mentalities. Islam is at that “Be As Us Or Die”, phase. If anything is painfully obvious about Islam, it is its clearly defined inferiority complex. As a cultural dynamic, it behaves like the unruly little brother, throwing temper tantrums to get attention. Christianity has mellowed on its, “we’re right, you die now”, mentality about 300 years ago. Judaism, over 2000 years ago (but Judaism is far older than Christianity or Islam). Islam is just ramping up into that phase. All religions go through this, much to the pain and suffering of those innocents unlucky enough to be around them.

To be honest, I’m not in the mood for 14th century thinking on the part of Muslims. Not with today’s technology. I think it’s pretty obvious that they will reap the whirlwind of their indiscretions and fury. A religious entity that wantonly kills its adherents is just one more indication of that philosophy.

Christianity (and most Heaven and Hell religions) use fear as a powerful motivational tool. It works, too. Christianity started a bit differently, and would have been an interesting religion if it had stuck to its roots (and now that it is going back to its roots, it's far more palatable), but Christianity may well have crapped out if it hadn't been for Constantine winning his campaigns after having a "vision" to slap a cross on the shields of his infantry. There's that dynamic again though -- Constantine wants to be victorious, so he boosts the morale of his men by citing a fierce god will give them victory under "H"is name, and when they win, it seems the prophecy is upheld. Now that entire empire, safe and a lot richer, has a vested interest in being adherents to the religion that won the day.

So god is angry because his followers need him to be a kick ass god of vengeance who will slay all who stand before them. Great - I'm impressed. It seems the Jihad superstars have taken this to heart in their angry missives about destroying the Great Satan™ as they make their heart-felt appeal: “God willing”.
The Middle East is filled with nations that went from warring Bedouin tribes to insanely wealthy ruling regimes in what-- 20 years (mid 1940's to OPEC in 1968 I believe)? The rest of the world gradually grew up out of its saber rattling over the course of centuries, and even we in the west aren't fully in control of our emotions versus our technological might. That there hasn't been a nuclear war since WW2 is astonishing, almost miraculous. But the Muslims are only now going through their theocratic crusade period, and the problem is it's not just with horses and swords. Add a jihadic mindset, a martyrdom desire and genetically altered biological weapons, and all humanity is at risk!

Islam’s prior conquests and the crusades of Christianity maybe could have killed a few million people over the course of a few centuries, but the crusade of al-Qaeda could take out billions and leave nothing but a tattered shoe flapping in the silent wind as the human race's epitaph.

This mustn't be allowed. I have no intention of dying because someone else's "god says" I should.

Beaman said...

Firstly, thank you Louis and Rugged for a great debate in my comments section. Appologies for not being around much recently to add my two pennies worth.

Rugged said "Christianity and Judaism, as we know, met with reform and enlightenment. In short, they grew up, and became a positive force for civilization and progress worldwide. In fact, both were instrumental in shaping the social climate which fostered the freedoms, science, and prosperity of Western civilization."

I couldn't agree more! Exactly right.

Rugged has said what I believe about Islam and its resulting terrorism. Not much I can add except the sad fact that in 30-40 years nations like Holland will be majority Islamic.