War is Hell

I understand this expression ("War is Hell") originated with Sherman.  No doubt he used it as an excuse for his atrocities, not descriptively, but as a rationalization.  Nevertheless, it expresses a reality that people don't appreciate, until they think about the more traditional understandings of perdition.

Irving Berlin, in his song "This is the Army" got it I think right on (for those who listen to the words carefully) with this verse:

Do what the buglers command.
They're in the army and not in a band.

This is the army, Mister Brown.
You and your baby went to town.
She had you worried
But this is war and she won't worry you anymore.

On the battlefront one forgets other worries.

Since the last few days I've been on an ethics kick, it seems I should address the most serious ethical question of all that the ordinary person is likely to encounter -- war.

There is the concept of a just war and all the others, and in history there have been few just wars, but they do exist.  The Romans built their empire on "just wars," and even had silly rituals they went through to persuade themselves (or somebody) that their going out and conquering someone and pillaging their property and enslaving the population was "just."

One of the Ten Commandments is against stealing, and I have to wonder how it is that this never occurred to the Israelis as they conquered and displaced the Canaanites.  I could insert a snide comment here but I will let the readers insert their own.

I think it is pretty clear that wars conducted to occupy territory and take slaves and property can be ruled unjust.  What about a war to resist someone else doing this?  The right of self defense is questionable as a right, certainly not without boundaries and conditions (such as one has no right to engage in unnecessary brutality in such cases).  Still, the rule of minimizing harm seems to say one cannot allow bullies and aggressors to do their thing with impunity.  The have to be resisted if at all possible and with war if necessary.  Otherwise such types would rule the world and the harm from that would be immeasurable.

Now, what if you have reason to conclude that another country is preparing an invasion -- are you allowed to act preemptively?  Well it seems reasonable that if this will prevent an even worse war later on, then again by the rule of minimizing harm, it would be ethical.

Now we get into some deep politics -- what if the preemptive action is worse than the war, or results in conquest (not all conquests involve outright annexation -- just changing the regime in power to one more to one's taste is a form of stealing).  The outcome of war is highly unpredictable and may (usually does) far more harm than anticipated by the study institutes.

The personal ethical question, of whether or not to be a soldier, and whether or not to support one's nations' military actions, is complicated.  For the most part the attitude obviously should be pacifistic -- oppose war and support measures to reduce its likelihood (ironically that almost always includes supporting defensive military preparation).

Patriotism, when not taken too far (as is the case with all virtues) is a virtue.  One loves one's country, one wants it to persist, one wants it to prosper.  Being at war is counterproductive to these desires, but may be unavoidable.

There is also the horrible set of questions as to one's personal behavior when on the battlefront?  I know myself I could never kill another person, no matter what, so I guess I am lucky I was never in that position.  Still, it is not for me to judge what others may decide to do.  I would just ask that they mindfully review the options in advance.

The Ten Commandments

It's informative sometimes to ask a person who insists they follow or are guided by God's Law what law in particular they mean.

Of course one often gets "the Bible." Well obviously the Bible has some laws in it, but it is not a law book.  Besides, Christians, at least, do not follow most of the Bible laws, found in the Mosaic Law.  Various explanations are given for this,  having to do with that Law having been "fulfilled," or replaced by the Law of Love.

I have no idea how anything Jesus did could have fulfilled the law, and as I recall he went out of his way to be explicit that nothing in that law was to be ignored or broken -- just that common sense was needed in its application (the Sabbath can be broken in emergencies is, as I recall, the example he gave).

When asked to see some specific laws found in the Bible, we of course almost always get the Ten Commandments.  One has to ask, since the Mosaic Law is fulfilled and since the Ten Commandments are obviously part of this, why just it, and not all of the Mosaic Law, is considered valid.

The Ten Commandments are of course on the whole an excellent guide, so long as not taken too literally (the common sense rule) and not taken as anything near a complete ethics guide (for example it does not prohibit slavery or discrimination or using legal process to force others to observe one's personal ethics).  It is also composed of "shalt not" commands, and there are some affirmative things that should be in one's basic ethical beliefs -- such as giving to charities, doing safe and healthy things, etc.

The Commandment having to do with the Sabbath is of course specific to the tradition, but there is no problem I see with mandating a day of rest.  That it has to be one day in seven as a minimum is a bit silly, and this probably should not be part of a basic law as it does not rise to the level of honesty and fidelity in marriage, let alone not killing people.

The Sabbath law has also had the perverse effect of forcing a seven day week on our calendar, which has made it resistant to decimalization and unnecessarily complicated the calendar.  A ten day week with two or three Sabbaths would in my mind be better.  Going to church on a Sabbath is also inconsistent -- it is supposed to be a day of rest.

The main problem is with the statement that Jehovah (YHVH) is said to be a "jealous" God.  That is an obvious hold-over from the days when monotheism was not established and the actual existence of other gods was still believed -- otherwise what does Jehovah have to be jealous of?  The real problem here though is not its illogicality but its implication of intolerance.

God's jealousy also leads to to the ban on idolatry.  It goes so far as to ban the making of images entirely -- something Islam has taken beyond common sense and is of course impossible in the modern world (photo id's for example).  The fact is that there is no such thing as idolatry -- no one thinks the statue is actually the god -- this is brought out in the defense of Christian icons -- they are aids for focus and art works incorporating religious feelings.  When the Buddhist bows to the Buddha, no one thinks the Buddha is actually present in the statue -- it is respect and tradition and things like that, not "worship." (One day I must do a blog on the meaninlessness of the concept of worship anyway).  Ask any Buddhist -- the Buddha is dead.

If I were to scan the Bible for ethics, I would probably concentrate on the Sermon on the Mount -- something to be read from time to time for its lack of hypocrisy, its common sense, and its affirmative commands (along with things not to do).  I will maybe deal with this another day.

Atheist Ethics

As I explained in the previous blog, I am, or at least define myself, as an atheist.

Some people think that implies an absence of ethical or moral standards, but most understand that this notion is silly.  Still, I hear it often enough that maybe a few words about it are in order.

I may be an atheist, but I am also a human being.  The Buddhists have taught me that compassion for all sentient beings leads to peace of mind and happiness; Kant taught me never to "use" another person and to test actions based on whether I would be willing to allow anyone else to do the same; Socrates, via Plato, taught me that I should be careful in deciding that things are right or wrong, as in the end we don't know the ultimate consequences of what we do.  Regardless of all this, one does what is right because it is right and avoids doing what is wrong because it is wrong -- we do not really need a reason -- the difficult thing is not this but somehow discerning what is right and what is wrong.

One thing an atheist doesn't have is an authority, such as God, telling me what is right or wrong.  Is it so bad, this having to make my own choices, knowing that there is no deity handing out prizes and punishments?

Authority driven ethics suffers the often explained problem that I will here ask again -- does God decide on right and wrong, based on his power or something like that, or is it instead that in his perfection and wisdom he just tells us, his already knowing?  The problem with the first possibility is, can God tell us to do evil?  The problem with the second is that if God cannot tell us to do evil, or always chooses the good, then doesn't that mean that good and evil are something separate from God, and indeed his superior?

So then do I just follow my conscience and do what feels right?  I think largely that is a good thing -- do what your conscience tells you -- but this also suffers the problem of authority driven ethics, mainly in the issue of whether or not my conscience has got it right and not must making me feel better about doing something wrong.

What is our conscience?  Where does it come from?  Well of course this is pretty obvious if you note that the details of conscience varies by culture and over time.  Today in most of the world slavery is considered a serious evil, but through history it didn't seem to bother most people.  Today teenage sex, especially with full adults, is strictly off limits, leading in some countries to bouts of hysteria, but classical cultures (at least much of Greece) thought it an excellent thing, at least for boys.  (Don't misunderstand -- I disapprove too as I think being introduced to sex too young spoils a lot of things for the guy as he grows up, but I don't think it the horror one sees in the United States).

So conscience (aka "how we feel about it") is a reasonably good guide but not perfect.  I think it is okay so long as we do it "mindfully"-- that is, we give it some conscious consideration whether or not it meets independent tests.  Mindfulness, of course, is a virtue to be exercised in everything, not just ethical decisions.

In the end, of course, each situation has to be considered on its own, with the objective of doing the most possible good and the least possible harm (pretty much what everyone who has thought about it concludes).  We do what we do with compassion and wisdom (charity is good but can do harm if it creates dependency).  It ain't that hard, at least most of the time.

Proving there is no God (Hard Atheism)

How can someone possibly say for sure there is no God, let alone think they can prove it?

I think maybe I have set the question fairly, but of course right away I need to point out I avoided the word "believe." I don't "believe" there is no God, I only "say" it (or think it when saying so out loud would be inappropriate).

Actually, I don't even "think" there is no God -- I just don't think there is one.  This is a slightly different statement -- the first one is an affirmative assertion and hence has a burden of proff, while the second is a negative, subject to the rule that you can't prove a negative (you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist, but we all know it -- however, I think that approach is a cop-out).

The thing is, so often believers (aka "theists") insist they will believe in God unless I can prove otherwise.  If someone said as much of the jolly fat man, we would see the logical fallacy, but logical fallacies seem to be allowed when it comes to God (more of them later).

There are at least three standards that if met constitute "proof." The one usually meant goes:  "Beyond all doubt, for a certainty." This is more than just an unfair demand, it is an absurdity.  If this is the test for knoweldge, we do not know and can never know anything, since no amout of evidence and logic could achieve such a thing.  Even mathematical proofs do not achieve that standard, as there is always the possibility that there is an unseen error in the reasoning, or a flaw in one of the assumptions (axioms and definitions).

A slightly more reasonable definition of "proof," to be used, I suppose, in deciding whether to send someone to jail, is "beyond reasonable doubt." This of course is the legal demand in most criminal courts.  What it says is you look at the evidence and any sensible person will be able to see what happened, and any that say otherwise are just being perverse.  "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." I think that statement meets this test.

In civil cases, however, there is a different standard of proof -- it goes, "A preponderance of the evidence." It is hard to give examples of this because this rule and the reasonable doubt rule have no clear dividing line.  They merge, as it were, along a fuzzy boundary.

The first argument I would present against God's existence is as old as the hills, and has never been refuted, and yet theists continue to fool themselves into thinking otherwise.  It is summed in the bit of nonsense about whether God can create a rock so big he can't move it.  I do wish the problem historically had used something different, since God is not a phyical being (I think we will all agree on that) so rocks make the issue seem trivial, and it is anything but trivial.  Spiritual or not, can God create such a rock?

Modern mathematics (mainly in Goedel's theorems) has shown us that in systems complex enough (and numbers or geometric shapes are complex enough) there must necessarily exist unprovable but true theorems.  Can God prove such a theorem?  That the answer necessarily must be "no" will be obvious to anyone who understand this, but that is going to be a minority.

Can God believe something that is false?  Of course not.  Can God tell a lie?  Can God do something less than perfect?  Can he do something evil?  The answers to these questions imply that God is just a machine doing the right thing all the time, who has no possibility of choice in what he does since anything less that perfect in all respects is outside his capabilities.

There exists a standard, highly dishonest, response to this -- we will redefine God and deny him absolute omnipotence.  He can do anything except what is against his nature to do, and it is against his nature to do anything illogical or imperfect or evil. 

You really in that case don't have much of a God left, but, as I already said, just a machine.

To digress a bit, I remember having a certain person defend the idea of eternal torment in Hell as punishment for sins committed in a short human life.  This sort of notion of course blies the idea of God as just, (but then any sort of eternal punishment, even extinction, is unjust in this context).  What I was told was that Hell is something God could not avoid -- it follows from the nature of sin and God is so perfect he has to torture people eternally.

Hard to not want to throw up at such things -- if God does exist I guess such people are lucky he is merciful, the slander about him that people invent.

All I can say when I hear theists bandy about words like "omnipotent" and then explain the self-refrerential contradictions that any sort of infinity implies is they don't think they need be logical when it comes to God.

There are, of course, other gods about besides the "God" of the Bible and Q'uran.  Threre is the Tao, who by definition can't be known, so we might as well ignore him.  Then there are polytheistic deities, as in Hinduism and Paganism.  They don't count either since they make no claim to being God but are merely gods, with maybe superhuman power, but not omnipotence.