My Beef With Boghossian

Does religion make people behave maliciously? Does religion make people evil? Do we need to rid the world of religion because it makes people malicious and evil? The answer to these questions is a resounding “yes,” or at least that is the answer rather strongly implied by the work of Portland State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian. Boghossian’s new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a rallying cry to what Boghossian calls “street epistemology;” basically atheist evangelicalism that seeks to divorce theists from their supernatural beliefs by attacking a theist’s theory of knowledge. In being a rational person, Boghossian says that there should not only be evidence to support beliefs but a proper chain of reasoning to come to certain conclusions. I certainly agree with Boghossian that faith is a failure of epistemology and I agree that the more outrageous a belief claim the more extraordinary evidence is required to make certain inferences. The problem is that if there should be evidence to support beliefs, whatever they may be, then Boghossian and his merry band of followers do not appear to be playing by their own rules. 

[Before going any further, I must disclose that I have never met, taken a class with, or otherwise talked to Dr. Boghossian. So, I cannot say how much of his beliefs or the beliefs of the presumably rational atheist community that I will now discredit they have personally examined or what rationalizing – different from rationale – they have used to come to certain conclusions.]

First, we have to understand what motivates the Boghossian and the current nu-atheist movement. (Hint: It’s the same as the old motivation.) What motivates a pseudo-militant atheist* like Boghossian is their belief that the world suffers, and has suffered throughout history, from the theistic beliefs that are rampant in almost every culture on Earth. Boghossian and his followers believe that if only people could be cured of their “faith virus” and turned towards atheism (which by-golly must be, by default, rational) the world would be a much better place. I know this is the premise these presumably rational atheists are working from because I used to think exactly the same thing a few years ago. And then I grew up.

[*A pseudo-militant atheist seeks to engage you in conversation with a measure of compassion but has an ulterior motive. But, hey, theists do the same thing, so why not?]

As a true, bona-fide philosopher who is not a Scotsman – philosophical humor; move along – I had a belief that was open to revision. (All beliefs must be so, according to Boghossian, or you’re not rational; agreed.) I found that the more people I met throughout life, I would come to categorize an individual as a good person by about a 4-to-1 margin regardless of whether they were theistic or atheistic. [Meaning, for every 4 good theists or atheists I met, there was 1 bad theist or atheist. Certainly, we could argue over my criteria for what makes for a good or bad person, but let’s focus on the subject at hand right now.] I found that in dealing with people, religion or lack thereof seemingly had no bearing on whether or not someone was nice to me. Of course, my personal experiences with people are anecdotal evidence that religion plays no part in what makes a human moral, and anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon in philosophy. (Nevermind that it is often admissible in a court of law, but, whatever.) So, in order to tear down the premise from which presumably rational atheists are working from, perhaps we should examine history.

The presumably rational atheist works from the premise that historically speaking, religion has been the spark for untold amounts of suffering. Problem is, is that if we examine, say, the deaths caused by religion throughout recorded history, what presumably rational atheists say about religion simply isn’t true. For example, noted historian and chronicler of atrocities, Matthew White, concludes in his latest book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things that of the worst 100 atrocities in recorded history, only 13 of them are the direct result of (or assumed to be the direct result of) one religious ideology pitted against another. If we do the math, that leaves 87 atrocities in which religion played a secondary or little to no role in armed conflict. Obviously then, the presumably rational atheist is wrong about religion in terms of the amount of violence theists inflict upon others due to their theistic beliefs, so what do they mean when they say religion is the cause of untold amounts of suffering? (More on that in a moment.) Quickly, a question arises: Why aren’t presumably rational atheists examining the evidence for their own beliefs? A lack of evidence is the point Boghossian is hammering theists on, but why isn’t he applying his methodology to the beliefs of the members of his own community? Isn’t the premise presumably rational atheists are working from “something they are pretending to know,” as Boghossian would put it?

It may be the case that the presumably rational atheist senses there is an amount of harm done by religion that is psychological. Although they rarely cite this as the meaning behind their basic assumption about religion, they still have no evidence that the psychological manipulations perpetrated by theists upon other people (shaming, for example) is caused by the theist’s religious beliefs as opposed to, say, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Is there perhaps a biological imperative that drives people to try and control others through any means available? Where is the evidence pointing one way or the other? Despite the lack of evidence – which is required to rationally believe something – the presumably rational atheist typically clings to the premise they began with, that religion is bad and that a world full of rational atheists would be better. Even if this were true, look what happens when we take the second part of their premise to its logical conclusion.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the presumably rational atheist is right (because there is supporting evidence) and the world would be better if it were full of rational people, given that rational people are less violent and not quite the psychological terrorist theists are. If it is concluded that rational people are morally superior, might there be sub-categories of rational people who are less violent and less psychologically manipulative than the group as a whole? Woman are often regarded as less violent than men and rightly so because that’s what all available evidence indicates. Moreover, evidence indicates that homosexuals as a group are less violent than women. If we take the presumably rational atheist’s original premise to its logical conclusion, the world would be a whole lot better off not under the direction of rational people, but under the direction of rational, atheistic lesbians. But you’ll never hear the presumably rational atheist come to such a conclusion because they haven’t looked at the evidence. They haven’t played by their own rules. 

Nor do they apparently want to. I cannot relate to you how many times I walked the halls of Portland State University as a student and saw flyers for the latest meeting extoling the virtues of Communism. This, despite the fact that all historical evidence indicates that Communism is a complete failure in practice.

This is not so much an attack on Boghossian as it is an attack on the beliefs of the latest, growing crop of atheists in general. After all, although I noticed the failure of theistic epistemology over two decades ago, Boghossian has pointed out this flaw in theism with more wit and flair than I ever could. And I would fully support his endeavor to de-convert people from their faith if only the evidence indicated that religion corrupts individuals and has been a detriment throughout history. But the evidence isn’t there. And therein lies my beef; don’t require of others evidence for their beliefs if you’re not going to apply the same standards to your own.

I'd like to believe that no one likes a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Where's the Beef, Conspiracy Hypothesists?

It’s been awhile since a rant about conspiracy wonks, so I’m due…

I’ve begun thinking that conspiracy theorists should be renamed “conspiracy hypothesists” seeing how little evidence there is for 99.9% of their claims. To be a proper “theorist” one has to present evidence that is possibly compelling enough to lead to the conclusions so-called conspiracy theorists make. Now, I like speculating and hypothesizing as much as the next person, but I’m sure not going to tell you Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated by garden gnomes without compelling evidence. Similarly, I’m not going to tell you there WAS a conspiracy to assassinate JFK even though I do believe there is something fishy about the whole thing. BUT, since I cannot prove it, since I have no compelling evidence, all I have is a hypothesis about the assassination and NOT a theory. 

However, it appears the average conspiracy hypothesist has never taken a basic philosophy course, much less any instruction in epistemology. [To be fair, most people haven’t, hence, all kinds of weird ass beliefs.] To illustrate how batshit crazy some conspiracy hypothesists are, I came across a video by one wonk that proclaimed, among other ramblings, that there is a reason why your navel and doctors are named what they are. Um, that would be because YOU are akin to a ship (which apparently MUST be part of a navy) and you are delivered by a DOCtor (get it) who cuts your umbilical cord, which creates your navel. They (whoever they are) are very clever and like to make a joke out of taking freedom away from good people. Our legal terminology is no coincidence! [No, I am not making this shit up. Someone else is.] Of course, none of what our fine theorist says is backed up by any research, especially seeing how the etymology of “navy” is rooted in Latin and “navel” is rooted in Germanic. What our wonk has done is nothing even close to theorizing. 

Moreover, the always popular David Icke – famous for his works of fiction about interdimensional aliens running the New World Order being mistaken for non-fiction, especially by himself – has failed to produce a single alien body or flat-out uncover an alien posing as a politician. At best then, Icke is a conspiracy hypothesis, not a conspiracy theorist. The same rebranding applies to people who believe the ancient yet suppressed “art” of sun-gazing cures all illnesses or that orgone energy isn’t pseudo-science. As I’ve said many times before, prove it conspiracy hypothesists! Prove these things beyond a shadow of a doubt and they’ll not only be theorists, they’ll be fucking scientists in some cases. 

I’m not going to dispute that there HAVE BEEN conspiracies in the past. However, proven conspiracies are no longer in the realm of the theoretical once they are revealed. Sure, they may be conspiracies currently taking place as well, but until they can be proven they are a matter of speculation (thus, hypothetical) and there must be evidence to compel us to accept that any given conspiracy is actually taking place. You rarely, if ever, get such evidence from conspiracy hypothesists who instead like nothing more than to play connect the dots, poorly at that.

Let’s stop our tacit legitimization of the beliefs of conspiracy theorists by calling a spade a spade; conspiracy theorists are actually conspiracy hypothesists. The terminology is no coincidence.

The Irrationality of Procreation

A recent article asked the question, “Is modern life making us irrational?” My first thought and subsequent post related that people are irrational by nature and that the desire for children is an indication of this. Predictably, I was lambasted for such a comment. “WHAT’S IRRATIONAL ABOUT WANTING CHILDREN?” and this was coming from so-called rational people (they being the target audience of the article). In order to defend myself, let’s take a woman in her mid-30s as our example: When a woman starts to feel as though her biological clock is ticking, that time is running out to have children, this is not a feeling based on any rationality; it’s a matter of biological urgency. A feeling, an internal longing or desire, or what have you, is the opposite of being rational. This is not just a matter of semantics; this is simply the way it is.

Basically, I’ve never met anyone who has given a rational reason for having children. Of course, we might ask what a rational reason would be for having children, and the answers I can think of are few: Perhaps children are necessary to have someone to care for us in our old age or to have a potential organ or blood donor should an organ or blood need replacing or replenishing. Or, perhaps children are more entertaining than a dog or cat, although I would not agree with that sentiment.

Usually, though, like the woman running out of time to have a child, the reasons for having children are irrational. When someone says they want children, it is because that is what society or culture demands of its participants or because someone wants to raise a human being to be better than they ever were or have more than they ever had. I’m not saying having irrational reasons are wrong or immoral, just that such reasons are based in biology, or, has psychological underpinnings. So-called rational people never admit they are irrational, though, for that would undermine their belief that they are, ahem, rational people.

For the most part, I have never wanted children. In the rare cases I would have consented to having children was due to either the fact that my partner at the time wanted children and I thought they’d be a fit parent (meaning they’d be better at raising a child than me) or because I believed – irrationally so – that the combined genetic make-up of our offspring would somehow, ambiguously, be ‘superior.’ But when I see how difficult children can be, the headaches they cause both figuratively and literally, I see no reason to want children. When I see how much time is dedicated to raising a child, weighed against my desire for free time, I see no reason to want children. And when looking at the cost of raising a child, well, do you have any idea how many cases of good beer I could buy instead? At least my desire NOT to have children is rationally based.

It is often claimed that the desire not to have children is selfish, though this assertion is clearly illogical given that the desire not to have children is no more selfish than anyone whose goal it is to have children. Of course, by not having children I am robbing the world of my exceptionally good-looking offspring whose good looks really amount to nothing more than bullying, or, robbing the world of my exceptionally intelligent offspring who the exceptionally good-looking kids would beat up in school. Either way, it’s a no-win situation, so why waste endure the headache, waste the time, and subject myself to large quantities of cheap beer? Because if I’m not already an alcoholic, I would be after having a child. Sparing my liver seems quite reasonable to me.

It takes brains not to have children, once again pointing out that rational people are usually nothing of the sort.

Marriage and the Bad Advice it Generates

There's a lot of bad advice out there about marriage and the latest by Seth Adam Smith is near the top of the heap. I've re-printed it below, a short painful read if you're interested, and my reaction follows.

Marriage Isn’t For You by Seth Adam Smith

Having been married only a year and a half, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that marriage isn’t for me. Now before you start making assumptions, keep reading.

I met my wife in high school when we were 15 years old. We were friends for ten years until…until we decided no longer wanted to be just friends. :) I strongly recommend that best friends fall in love. Good times will be had by all.

Nevertheless, falling in love with my best friend did not prevent me from having certain fears and anxieties about getting married. The nearer Kim and I approached the decision to marry, the more I was filled with a paralyzing fear. Was I ready? Was I making the right choice? Was Kim the right person to marry? Would she make me happy?

Then, one fateful night, I shared these thoughts and concerns with my dad.

Perhaps each of us have moments in our lives when it feels like time slows down or the air becomes still and everything around us seems to draw in, marking that moment as one we will never forget.

My dad giving his response to my concerns was such a moment for me. With a knowing smile he said, “Seth, you’re being totally selfish. So I’m going to make this really simple: marriage isn’t for you. You don’t marry to make yourself happy, you marry to make someone else happy. More than that, your marriage isn’t for yourself, you’re marrying for a family. Not just for the in-laws and all of that nonsense, but for your future children. Who do you want to help you raise them? Who do you want to influence them? Marriage isn’t for you. It’s not about you. Marriage is about the person you married.”

It was in that very moment that I knew that Kim was the right person to marry. I realized that I wanted to make her happy; to see her smile every day, to make her laugh every day. I wanted to be a part of her family, and my family wanted her to be a part of ours. And thinking back on all the times I had seen her play with my nieces, I knew that she was the one with whom I wanted to build our own family.

My father’s advice was both shocking and revelatory. It went against the grain of today’s “Walmart philosophy”, which is if it doesn’t make you happy, you can take it back and get a new one.

No, a true marriage (and true love) is never about you. It’s about the person you love—their wants, their needs, their hopes, and their dreams. Selfishness demands, “What’s in it for me?”, while Love asks, “What can I give?”

Some time ago, my wife showed me what it means to love selflessly. For many months, my heart had been hardening with a mixture of fear and resentment. Then, after the pressure had built up to where neither of us could stand it, emotions erupted. I was callous. I was selfish.

But instead of matching my selfishness, Kim did something beyond wonderful—she showed an outpouring of love. Laying aside all of the pain and aguish I had caused her, she lovingly took me in her arms and soothed my soul.

I realized that I had forgotten my dad’s advice. While Kim’s side of the marriage had been to love me, my side of the marriage had become all about me. This awful realization brought me to tears, and I promised my wife that I would try to be better.

To all who are reading this article—married, almost married, single, or even the sworn bachelor or bachelorette—I want you to know that marriage isn’t for you. No true relationship of love is for you. Love is about the person you love.

And, paradoxically, the more you truly love that person, the more love you receive. And not just from your significant other, but from their friends and their family and thousands of others you never would have met had your love remained self-centered. Truly, love and marriage isn’t for you. It’s for others.

# # #

As is the case with much mediocrity these days, this near-viral article is receiving a lot of applause. Why is anyone’s guess since giving the article anything more than a second of critical thought devastates the author’s assertion that marriage is something we should do for the sake of others. Such an assertion is all well and good for people who want to approach marriage from such a perspective I suppose, but such an approach is not necessarily the way it ought to be. 

The author begins the article by voicing his concerns about getting married, but his fears are soon assuaged by some “sage advice” from his father. “Sage advice” is in quotations, naturally because his father’s advice is about as potentially bonkers as you can get. Personally, had my father given me such advice about getting married, I would have doubled my efforts to ensure I never put a ring on someone’s finger. Marriage is not about the other person more than it is about one’s self. Such an assertion almost guarantees a miserable marriage due to the undercurrent of resentment the unhappy person harbors. For example, I once knew a woman, Emma, who married her husband given the understanding that neither of them wanted children. Six months into the marriage her husband began pestering her to have children because he thought she’d change her mind about children after they married. Was Emma supposed to cave into her husband’s hidden agenda because marriage is about making her spouse happy? That is the outcome the author’s father’s advice leads her towards. Of course, we could argue that Emma’s husband should not have hidden his agenda from her if he wanted to make her happy, but he may have been under the false assumption that having children will make Emma happy and may have believed that she just doesn’t know it and cannot know it until she has children. Unfortunately for the husband, Emma remained true to her original, honest position on children and divorced her traitorous husband because marriage is NOT about the other person, it is about both people. 

Furthermore, the father is off the mark about marriage being about having kids. Sure, he’s giving good advice if the couple wants children, but the old argument about marriage being about children is practically medieval at this point in history. What would the father’s advice have been if his son said him and his wife didn’t want children? That his son was being selfish? Uh, wouldn’t it be selfish of the father to demand that his son and wife have children (selfish insofar as having children upholds the father’s beliefs about marriage)? The father’s advice becomes even worse if the point of being in a marriage is to make one’s children happy. I say this because the constant placating of children has produced a generation of spoiled brats who think they’re entitled to everything and don’t even appreciate their parents. I never wanted to have children myself because, frankly, I don’t want to put up with their shit (both figuratively and literally). I guess that makes me selfish, though I fail to see how I’m any less selfish than people who actually want children.

While I agree that there are often times you might want to please your spouse – because their happiness is meaningful to you – such desires should not come at the constant expense of one’s own happiness. For too long, Western notions of romance have kowtowed to the notion that love implies self-sacrifice, as if being interested in one’s own happiness is immoral. I would have never married my wife if I didn’t think that commitment would make me happy. What do I get out of marriage? Someone to share experiences with, regular sex, and good home-cooked meals. And, I had the same fears going into marriage as the author because as a rational person, if I think I could be making a mistake but go ahead with it anyway, I’d be unhappy and wind up with an unhappy marriage with no one to blame but myself because I didn’t properly analyze the situation. How is it a mistake to examine such an important decision? If marriage is all about the other person, then really, you might as well marry anyone since your own happiness is of no consequence. Oddly, by virtue of the father’s advice, going all out to please your spouse is what gives you worth, which hypothetically should make you happy. Surely, though, it must be difficult to happy when all pursuit of self-fulfillment is abandoned. Oh, that’s right, I keep forgetting that complete sacrifice is a virtue, except that in the real world, it is not. As one commenter on the article wrote, “Self-suppression and denial create mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unhealthy circumstances that inevitable end in tears. What horrible advice this guy got from his father.”