Blessed is the honest bishop

Share |

Here is an interesting article by a bishop in the Huffington Post about the churches role in inciting hatred of gays, lesbians and the like. It is a rather candid article coming from the church.

When a religious leader is so progressive, you have to wonder whether he retains any religious conviction. Clearly he retains a great deal of intellect...but only by driving his conflict to a deeper moral fundamental realm. Christians are morally obliged to throw themselves under a bus to protect others from prejudice. He neglects to understand that such collectivism is the source of this prejudice in the first place. He is therefore not a champion of moral rectitude but moral ambivalence. But bless the church for engaging and compromising its integrity yet again. It might well culminate in another church to defend or react to the indefensible. But there is plenty of moral scepticism out there, so I'm sure this bishop will find a market.

I am hoping to drive a 'Greek-inspired' revival of rational self-interest. These Christian apologists however keep 'doggedly' or 'dogmatically' clinging to their 'altruist' beliefs contrary to all the bleating evidence. Oh well....another century before the next intellectual revolution. I think we will have to wait until the next century before we can download a code of ethics into people, such that they will no longer quibble over 'what their bleating minds are for'.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is religion selfish?

Share |

The answer to that question is supposedly – ‘morally yes, but practically no’ when a person uses religion in order to attain some benefit. The problem with this understanding is that it lacks a theory of values. Consider the notion of selfishness – defined as a primary concern with one’s self interest, which is what? This is where most people stop thinking. But we must ask – What constitutes our self interest? Is rape in our interests? And we have to renounce rape because its against the law right? (selfless conception). Or is there some objective standard to say that rape is bad. This objective or ‘enlightened’ self interest concept invariably leads one to conclude that self interest is good if one has objective interests or values. i.e. It matters neither whether you profess to do something for others (i.e. non-self) or oneself, the issue is why you do it. Does the value have legitimacy. So you ask – what is the basis for prescribing the basis of any value – objective or subjective. I would suggest that it is your nature as a human being.

It is easy to identify the moral validity and illegitimacy of some values because their actors are so pathetic that their actions could only be construed as good or bad. i.e. We are not going to bad-mouth Warren Buffett for working hard, nor for giving billions to a non-profit foundation. The flipside is that we would regard the deception or abuse of people as repugnant because its universal application could only result in a degeneration in social values. But what of moral greyness?

What of a productive person who compromises his values in order to attain a big order? What of capable person who accepts a idiot guy because she fears never meeting another guy? Is this moral greyness? Is it simply a bad choice?

-----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Does religion convey good values?

Share |

What is the purpose of a relationship with God? The idea that you need a relationship with a person before you are able to connect with a being strikes me as asymmetrical. We associate a relationship with mutual interaction, yet a relationship with god is polar. You may as well be talking to yourself; and more importantly, there is good reason to think that you are talking to yourself. I do not dismiss that some Christians are even able to talk themselves into such a ‘frenzy’ that they can imagine gods.

Having established a ‘loving relationship’ with god, what is the purpose of the relationship? I guess it is a shared love for others. Why does God need us to do that? Why doesn’t God simply have the same relationship with them as he has with us.

It seems a great many people only want a relationship with God for material things. It might be argued that herein lies the problem. But I think if these people could have a good job, they would be more than happy to earn the money to get those material things. Maybe God could give them the courage and conviction so they could actually get those things if we concede the argument that the role of God is to give us things; that is the things which are not material. It makes one think; if the role of god is not to give us things, what is the point of having a relationship with him, unless we are a useless hobo.

Even if we admit that God has the capacity to give us things; so he has the capacity to take them away. How can we argue that we either deserve to receive things, or deserved to have things taken away from us? Does god intervene in our life to do justice or charity? At the end of the day, is it not simply us getting things, whether by earning them, stealing them or being given then. At the end of the day, is it not good for our sense of pride to do these things for ourselves.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religious fraud

Share |

There are religions around the world – such as the Catholic Church (in various countries), various mystic groups in India and sects in various countries which solicit money from people on the basis of fear, guilt or social pressure. These efforts involve subjecting people to public mocking or shame by compelling them to give money in private. Surely it would be more considerate and humble to actually give money in private, if only for the sake of the poor. Even for the rich. The idea of giving money in public can only lead to vulgar displays of wealth, for a religion which surely has monetary resources in abundance. Anything less simply looks like ‘cold hearted’ business. Are religion clergy the saints they are depicted as, or are they the worst form of manipulators?

What of paying penance to atone for your sins. Is that a legitimate practice? Why is it bad for people to be concerned by material wealth, and yet it seems to be the sole consideration for moral virtue in churches around the world. I wish I could say it is mastery of manipulation; but simply it is mastery over fools. We might well hear from religious leaders who condemn casinos for taking money from people who can ill-afford to lose it, and yet are the churches not going the same. Why would you seek a relationship with god if you did not need some material reciprocity, and would you not be peeved if you needed food, but only got advice from a clergy? The vice being: You have not got enough faith; keep searching, and it will come to you. You will finally meet someone who is as guilty as you. That is virtue? Well I do not doubt that there are other ‘true believers’ who would actually concede some material benefit so that these people may benefit. I have no doubt that reaching the bottom can only result in people seeing nothing but ‘blue sky’ ahead; most particularly in a welfare state where is really never was so bad, and where an adjustment of personal expectations can give one a lot of relief which one might interpret as a ‘gift from god’. Or is it simply we stopped wanting the intangibles?

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The problem for atheists

Share |

I am an atheists and in many respects life is good. I can’t say it is perfect, but I could not be happier. There is no place in my life for God, but I am very happy. A year ago I was not so happy. There was no place in my life for God then either. So there seems no positive correlation at all. Now is it simply about being happy? Does having a relationship with God impart any greater sense of happiness? I think not. In fact a great many of the Christians I encounter seem to be scared of their own shadows. They seem to have little in the way of mental efficacy. The more logical ones tend to be more defensive and evasive. In the case of my ex-boss, who was also a minister of his church, I would suggest he was terribly conflicted.

The more engaging ones simply don’t want to explore their minds. Its not that they are ‘closed minded’, its as if they have turned it off. Any argument results in a counter-assertion which is simply some dogmatic assertion they have learned at church. It is interesting to ask such people why they are happy. Don’t expect their happiness to relate to any meaningful values. They can no doubt celebrate the incidental….I want to change the world. This is in fact the basis of my happiness…the expectation that I can make a positive impact on the world, by helping people to become better parents, helping people to make money, helping people to develop good character values, etc. It really has nothing to do with helping people. It has more to do with being good at something. I am a consummate thinker developing new knowledge. I want to share these ideas so that I can achieve some practical success as the discovery process is so intangible….so I want to make it real. Poor fellows those Christians. I have tangible reasons to have confidence that I will achieve my goals, but they have to accept God’s world on faith. Faith is incidentally the acceptance of some assertion without evidence…not a good thing and contrary to your whole knowledge system.

Anyway, what makes me happy is the fact that I love my writing/work. I can't wait to get up in the morning and do my exercise, and start writing. If I have any hang up, its my impatience to get my ideas into books. The editing is a drag, though also a necessary process in developing ideas and organising them. Equally as important I finally have a lovely partner in my life, I no longer work for unethical people in the finance industry. Mostly I am excited about the impact of my future books. I have so many ideas....god is the last thing on my mind...so why spoil it. Ok, well its the last thing now.... :)

It is therefore understandable that I might think religion is a pack of crap. I can have a satisfying and rewarding life without it; I have intellectual arguments which dispel any need for it. The question then becomes - would I recommend it to people in difficulty? Well, not even if a gun was pointed at me. The reason is clear. Faith is not going to help you achieve; you don't develop a sense of efficacy by renouncing your mind; you don't develop your cognitive skills by memorising Christian verse. Basically you will only find another really insecure person at church. Hardly the type of person you want as a life partner....notwithstanding that there are morally 'grey' Christians with some redeeming Christians. Personally I take this as a superficial distinction. I don't spend much time around Christians. The only ones around me I have converted. It is a slow process, and who has the time.

----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The Ten Commandments - a new translation!

Share |

Christians have long been blessed with a simple rule book for living - the 'Ten Commandments'. What could be simpler? Well I am a little perplexed by it. Might reality be a little more complicated. I dont know about you but I was given a different rule book growing up. But thats ok, I eventually reached my current thinking for similar reasons. These commandments come from the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible: Exodus 20:2–17, and I have got this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments. Lets consider the rules:

1. Do not have any other gods before Me: Hmmm, can we take it that God is not an advocate of free markets and competition. Why then did he make competitors? Why didn't he just make me - one human with one subordinate woman like Eve. That would have been consistent at the very least since we are expected to be subordinate to him. And on that point, why do we have to worship him. My parents gave birth to me. Do I worship them because they might claim to have invested 18 years in me. No, because if they didn't have a selfish motive, why did they do it. How can he give man free will, but not let him exercise it. How can he pretend to give you a choice if you the choice is submission or damnation. Its like the choice you get from the tax office or any other common criminal. This strikes me as a big vague anyway coming from a God. It would need a court room interpretation. If I was looking for loopholes, I would say I am free of damnation if I praise no God since by doing so I am placing no God before, because I am not accepting any.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: OK, well I do think alot of myself, and I think anyone with a healthy self esteem would do the same. But I dont care if you are a God, I dont accept flacky arguments that dont add up. I always thought weak people have idols, whether footballers or shrines. Frankly I think this rule is God trying to be intangible so he can grab market share. A cynical ploy. I think his strategy is to be everything so he essentially kills all competition. But if he is 'the sun, the light, the holy spirit', is he not 'the idol' as well....see so he's not consistent.
3. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me: Dont worry I would never be so pathetic. Get this next section...He is a jealous God. That strikes me as rather insecure and not very understanding. How can you justifiably punish a child for the behaviour of their parents if you believe in free will, as God is supposed to. And if that was ok,why would you stop at the 3rd or 4th generation, and if you were perfect, why couldn't you decide which one - 3rd or 4th. This Christian God is looking pretty pathetic. I think he's pretty insecure, consider that he seems insolent like a child 'those who reject me'...classic manic depressive symptoms. He's like a school bully.
4. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. This doesn't make sense either for the same reason. OK I can understand him being rapped at the idea of getting attention, but why should generations 2-999th get a free ride, and why stop there. Cant he count higher?
5. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. I grew up with a different understanding. I thought we were supposed to not use God's name in vain, but this has a different meaning. This new interpretation seems to place a copyright on the use of God's name. Very smart! In fact its the first smart thing he has said. But even his commercial astuteness doesn't pass because he has on many occasions deplored the accumulation of wealth as a terrible sin, and what are royalty cheques but a blatant receipt of the 'almightt dollar'. This strikes me as an act of idolising.
6. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy: This one is a bit vague. Ok I grant God his Holy Day. Dont like shopping anyway, so I dont see myself missing Sunday's anytime soon. Mind you, this doesn't require me to go to church. He in fact doesn't even define what 'holy' is. But he does tell us in the following commandment - what it isn't.
7. For six days you shall labour and do all your work: Ok I dont agree to this one. But I can live with it because like a great many things it depends on how you define your terms, and I have yet to see a book called the 'Holy Dictionary' which means that everything is pretty much in the air. Mind you, I think a sensible God would not be so loose with his commandments, so he doesn't retain much credibility with me. For instance, does Sunday start at 12AM as that time format was estsblished later.
8. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. Ok he's starting to sound like a lawyer now. But read this - God is actually giving credence to the notion of slavery. He is tacitly supporting slavery. I am overwhelmed. No wonder why religious institutions seem to be constantly rewriting or revising their old interpretations. This is damning evidence that God is a closset fascist - and not even a benevolent fascist like America's Thomas Jefferson who also had slaves. At least Jefferson treated his slaves well....I cant say the same for God - apart from the Sunday holiday. And its not like he offered time and half...that came much later. And if you think its 'money' ok, but its money to the employer too, so why should it not go to the person with more need. No sense there.
9. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it. This item seems a bit redundant. For a perfect God he's a bit repetitive.
10. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ok this is grounds for impeachment. Firstly my parents made a great many mistakes. Second, why should I honour parents intrinsically when you dont. If we are living on the same earth, why is your moral code different from mine? You damn them and their children for 1000 generations, so why would I dogmatically honour them for that.
11. You shall not murder. Well I dont agree with this. I think it depends on the situation. If my life was threatened by others, I would feel compelled to kill them to retain my life. That is to say I would kill only in response to someone else initiating force. I think God stuffed up on this commandment. Poor judgement. How can you justify placing others right to kill above your own right to live. People will rationalise that you should have faith, but I've got no confidence in this God. I dont even think I want to capitalise his name any more...so 'god'...shame on you! Pity your disciples a 1000-fold. His mistake here is clearly that he stated it as a dogma, not as a principle that needed to be held in context of other facts. eg. Whom is seeking to derive a sense of value by fraud or force. That is the basis of philosophy, and why religion has nothing to add on ethics. Shame on him!
12. You shall not commit adultery. I think this commandment is the closest one could come to a credible commandment. Certainly you should not engage in extra-marital affairs without your partners knowledge, that would be lying. And as above, it would amount to trying to receive a value by deception. Here again, definition is important. If you have an open and honest agreement with your wife to have an open relationship, that should be legally ok, though I think it undermines the legitimacy of the relationship. But then that is not in question. They might be doing it to preserve the stability of family for the kids. I dont think its necessary if handled correctly, but its an error that I dont think anyone should be damned over. I give his half points for this one because I am a generous person, or generous God based on his performance.
13. You shall not steal. This suffers the same error - definition and context. I think its ok to steal from people who have stolen from you, though I think one needs to establish a support for objectivity, otherwise its likely to lead to rationalisation. That objectivity comes from confessing your actions after the fact so that an independent legal authority can determine the merit of the counter-claims. One could argue that this results in mob rule, but I think there is a context in which it might be ok to steal. eg. A society in which government has the moral right to steal (taxation). I dont care if one person or a person claiming to represent 50% of the population steals, it is still stealing. Righteousness is not a popularity contest.
14. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour: I think this commandment is not bad...but its not very comprehensive, so falls short, so I give him half points for this one. Its one thing to lie to others, but its equaly important that one doesn't delude oneself.
15. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. This is good too, but its not clear why? The problem is we dont know whether he is speaking metaphorically, whether one's 'neighbour' is a peer in the community, or anyone. I suspect anyone. If that is a universal principle, might this commandment be suggesting that we shouldn't covet any wife, slave, animal (whether for sex or possession I guess...lets not quibble) or possessions. Anyway it makes sense in as much as you shouldn't covet things because others possess them. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with honest ambition.

My Ten Commandments
As a final word....I am wondering why all the talk of 'Ten Commandments' because I can identify about 12 here - allowing for the fact that he is a little repetitive. I did not see much value in these commandments. I was trying to be generous - I give him 2 out of 12 points, and thats being picky about what you call a commandment. So thats just over 16% - not a good rating for a 'god'. But what is interesting is the things that he left out. Are there any acts of morality not covered in the Twelve Commandments? Well I can think of a few:
1. Be honest with thyself - not just others
2. Dont attempt to attain values by coercion or deception - more comprehensive than 'god's'.
3. Empathise with vested interests - but dont live for their sake
4. Live by your own judgement and place nothing above it
5. Live in accordance to your own hierarchy of values - Live for your own sake
6. Identify and pursue your values with a integrity and deliberance
7. Find purpose in everything you do - except your personal rehabilitation
8. Embrace reason as the standard of value
9. Take 100% responsibility for your achievements and failures in your life - even if others fail you
10. Feel free to junk these commandments and do what you like, but be prepared to pay the consequences on this earth - there is no other pertinent to your life until another is discovered

Mind you - you dont have to call me God. And I really couldn't care a F**K if you followed these rules or not. Its your life to screw up....you wont need damnation in another world, you will have it in this one. You will experience it in your career, your relationships, your personal sense of self worth. Have a nice day!

The Virtue of Humility

Share |

Why is humility a virtue? Why is it right to place the interests of others above oneself? Why is it virtuous for others to help you, but selfish for you to help yourself?

The first task is to actually define ones terms so we have a common understanding of what we are talking about. Part of the reason why moral confusion and conflicts in people's lives is that they lack the clarity in thinking required to resolve their conflicts. Poor definition of terms plays a big part in this confusion. The terms I would like to define are:

1. Selfishness: Most dictionaries consider selfishness as an interest primarily with oneself. No conflict there. But here is where the moral confusion arises because: Acting in one’s self interest need not be at the expense of others. Acting in one’s self interest might actually mean serving others. The people we help are not all of the same standing. Everyone has a hierarchy of values. There are people we hate, strangers, acquaintances, friends, family, lovers, and they all occupy some ranking in terms of personal importance. If we were to renounce our values, we would seek to place lovers at the top and we would treat all these people the same.
2. Humility: Humility requires one to attach less importance to oneself. Humility thus cannot be judged out of context. In what sense can we be said to have a heightened sense of importance. We can be overconfident in our capacity to deal with events, or in our relationships with events. Is that not the proper sense that comes from success, and when we fail, we adjust. What justification is there for thinking less of oneself unless it is considered wrong to attach any value to one's life as a moral code.

The reality is that people cannot reject selfishness or pride. Consider the paster that argues that we should believe in God. How can a humble soul with a diminished sense of his own importance get up and preach with such righteousness and certainty. The answer they would argue is that they are agents of God, that God is acting through them. If that is the case, why are they so imperfect by any moral standard. If they are not entitled to the reward of pride, what possible motive can they have for acting. Are they machines? If so they are outside the field of humanity or morality.

The reality is that religious values are not consistent with human nature - they are the antithesis of it. These 'moral' principles were in fact conceived by men to control men. The history of religious tenets suggest as much. Many of the ideas that are expressed in the Bible are not even original, rather they were developed over time. The implication is the Bible was merely a synthesis of pre-existing ideas that was packaged for political purposes by Roman scholars intent on controlling the Israelites through the church 'establishment'. Recognising the practicality of the strategy, the Church under the support of government, spread the same philosophy to other territories. Today the Church still has the distinction of being a tax free entity.