The Duality of Human Nature

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Humans have two basic identities or natures.  We are herd animals but at the same time we have developed sufficient intelligence to see ourselves as individuals and to begin to think and act like individuals.  These two conflicting identities flow directly from the fact that evolution has essentially given us two brains--one on top of the other--attempting to work as a whole. 

For the vast majority of our evolution, we were simply animals living in a herd.  (Or, perhaps, as primates, we should be said to have lived in troops.  But, it should never be forgotten that the portion of our evolutionary history in which we were primates is quite small compared to the whole of it.)  A great deal of our innate behavior and thinking still reflects that history of living as herd animals for our own protection.

As we achieved higher cognitive functioning, language, the ability to manipulate and make tools with our hands, we began to see ourselves as individuals--whose interests were not always the same as that of the group.  Yet, because evolution did this by slowly adding more layers to our brains, we did not shed those more basic and instinctual behaviors even though the new thoughts and behaviors were often directly at odds with the old ones.

This conflict between our more basic instincts and behaviors and our more intelligent selves is our curse and explains much of the tragedy that we call human history.  Of particular note are the tragedies caused by individuals who have learned to use the herd instinct of the majority to control others and use them to further his or her selfish interests.  This is religion in a nutshell.  Such heinous actions are at the heart of any great human tragedy--whether religion was the vehicle used to control the herd or not.

I suspect that divergent attitudes and abilities in the human species are there largely because nature doesn't make us all the same both by "design" and by pure happenstance.  Our reproductive process contains a significant element of randomization.  This process results in a more varied population, which is an advantage in terms of ensuring that the species will survive in the face of unknown future changes in its environment.

Consequently, one sees both extreme conformists and extreme non-conformists in the same population.  Each group has characteristics that help its members overcome some of life's obstacles but can cause it to stumble over others. 

As herd animals, many of us conform mindlessly.  Many even consider nonconformity as a form of stupidity.  From their perspective, they are often correct on that score.

As a sentient species, we also have individuals who are on the cutting edge in terms of advancing the knowledge and thinking of the species--our greatest gift, which has made our global dominance possible.  Such individuals often see conformity as a form of stupidity.  Again, from their perspective, they have a point.  If we all conformed, mankind would still be living in caves (if not extinct).  All traits can be valuable in one circumstance and deadly in another.

This dichotomy between our more primitive selves and our higher brain functions is probably the most important thing to keep in mind when attempting to understand religion and its interplay with our politics and society.  Likewise the divide between those of our species who are examples of the more primitive man and those who seem to be dominated by higher brain functions.

The Christian Right in America Want "Special" Treatment

In an article published January 3rd on Openleft.com, Paul Rosenburg wrote about the Christian right's delusions of persecution.  First, he pointed out that the only way the Christian right could think they are being persecuted in the U.S. is if they think most Christians aren't really Christians.  In other words, Christian dominance of America in most ways is so obvious that he can feel marginalized only by thinking that other Christians aren't really Christian.  There may be some truth to that, but I think there is a more insidious explanation.  Rosenburg comes close to what I think is going on when he points out that the pervasive dominance of Christianity in American life doesn't make the Christian right feel "special" enough.  They want more.

Rosenburg is right that their complaints are all about the needs of their egos, but he misses the point that, even though their religion is clearly dominant in the U.S., they are deeply disturbed by the fact that it isn't dominant enough.  What they want is theocracy with blasphemy laws and the usual accoutrements that come with it.  In fact, Rosenburg was responding to an article written by one of the most far right Christian nationalists, Gary Bauer, otherwise known as "scary Gary" because of his extreme views, who was lamenting the fact that Christians don't get the "respect" in the U.S. that Muslims get.

Bauer's point is a bit laughable and reveals an incredible obtuseness--or, rather, an incredible self-centeredness.  The U.S. is dominated by Christians--constantly bullying any other Americans who don't agree with them.  Muslims who come here are like guests in our homes--we make an extra effort to be polite because of that dynamic.  Bauer thinks this is because of their religion rather than their status as guests.  He also thinks that his religion should elevate him to a higher status even in his own country.  Apparently, it's not enough to simply be dominant; he wants "special" treatment, too.

One of the most insightful observations made by Rosenburg was this:

"Thus, for example, we have a "Christian right" that revolves around two issues about which Christ never spoke a recorded word--abortion and homosexuality--while being intensely hostile to the welfare of the "least among these", about whom Christ spoke constantly.  The more deeply self-contradictory their "Christianity" becomes, the more tightly the cling to it, and the more they distrust other Christians who may not see things their way. This is what tribes do.  It is how they reshape whatever comes to hand--the Bible, the Constitution, American history, whatever--to serve the purposes of the tribe."

There are a couple of very good points in this observation.  First, Rosenburg has noticed the extent to which religion, especially Christianity, is an expression of the believers' Freudian anal retentive complexes.  They are obsessed with power, authority, and controlling their private parts--and everyone else's.  That is why Christianity today is so obsessed with abortion and homosexuality--to the exclusion of Christ's actual message.  In fact, they are actually hostile to Christ's actual message because actually following his teachings would require them to give up power.

Second, he is pointing out the extent to which their delusion becomes all pervasive, not only touching upon everything in their lives but twisting their perception of everything so that it serves their need for power and dominance--even their religion itself.  The fact that the needs of their egos causes believers to twist their own religion is not surprising, given that it exists for that purpose in the first place.  The problem, as Rosenburg points out, is the extent to which the religious will twist objective facts to serve the same purpose.

A person who will twist the facts to serve his ego and ambition is a person capable of anything because, as I pointed out before, at least twice, a willingness to be dishonest undermines all morality.

Hell Is the Absence of Reason

At the beginning of the movie "Platoon", the character played by Charlie Sheen said: 

"Somebody once wrote: 'Hell is the impossibility of reason.' That's what this place feels like.  Hell."

A related saying "hell is the absence of reason" is often attributed to Nietzsche, though it is unclear if he ever wrote those words.

Likewise, I don't know if I was the first one to write "faith is the rejection of reason", but I think it is clearly and absolutely true. 

When juxtaposed, these sayings can be seen to form a sort of extended syllogism:

Hell is the impossibility of reason; faith is the rejection of reason; the rejection of reason makes reason impossible; therefore faith is the impossibility of reason and therefore faith is hell.

I would add one more step:  What is hell?  It is the ultimate evil--an insane and tortuous existence that never ends.  Hell is something only a very sick mind could dream up, much less embrace.  Likewise faith.

The notion that we should all base our entire worldview on something for which there is no evidence is an insane and evil notion because it can only lead to insane and evil results.  Perhaps it was not such a bad principle for ordering human society during the early days of human history before we discovered notions of objectivity and rationality, but now that we know better it would clearly be insane to continue to adhere to it.

Tolerant of the Intolerant?

One often hears the term "intolerant" bandied about by the religious.  They like to use this word as an epithet against anyone who dares to disagree with them.  In other words, as I explained before, they don't seem to know what it really means. 

Intolerance is refusing to accept the other person's right to disagree and be left alone--it is not disagreement itself.  History shows that the religious are and always have been the intolerant ones.  By calling non-believers intolerant for simply disagreeing with them, they are proving that they are still the intolerant ones.  Disagree with their ideas or beliefs and they start name calling. 

The religious have, throughout history, tried to exterminate every atheist they could find. In many countries they still do so today. Furthermore, they didn't simply hang us from a nearby tree; they burned us at the stake, tortured us, etc.

Even in places where the religious have stopped doing that sort of thing, they are still attempting to persecute us to the fullest extent they can get away with--regardless of law, ethics, morality, and decency.  I can attest to this from firsthand experience.  The religious have proved their intolerance to me over and over again, starting almost the very moment I realized that religion was literally myth.

For the religious to accuse non-believers of intolerance for disagreeing with them is the most clear example of psychological projection I have ever encountered.  By calling us intolerant for disagreeing with them, they are letting us know, in no uncertain terms, that they intend to be intolerant of us for disagreeing with them.  They know that we have a right to disagree but not to be intolerant.  By labeling our disagreement as intolerance, they are attempting to set the stage for--justifying--taking action against us that will cause us to "shut up and conform".

There are really two issues here that have been confused by the religious and treated as one:  Intolerance of people and intolerance of ideas.  The fact that they confuse the two and act as if the two notions are the same thing indicates that there is no difference in their minds between themselves as individuals and their religion.  This clearly shows the extent to which a religious person's ego is tied up in his religion and helps explain why religious people have always been so intolerant of those who don't belong to their religion.

Furthermore, this deliberate confusion results in an implicit threat to the non-believer.  By making it clear that he intends to take the disagreement personally, the believer is saying "shut up, or else".  The "or else" depends on the particular believer's nature but it's clearly a threat.  Such a person is on the same moral and intellectual level as a schoolyard bully.  Given religion's history as little more than a violent, intolerant mob, this is no surprise.  Given that their god is a violent, intolerant bully, a change in their nature would be a great surprise.

These sorts of implicit threats are one of the many ways in which the religious poison and undermine the marketplace of ideas--which they then pretend to rely on as "proof" of religion's reasonableness by saying "a lot of people believe".  As I mentioned before, implicit in the assertion that "a lot of people believe" as an argument for belief is a threat of mob violence because the number of people who believe a thing is not proof of its truth.  It is proof, however, of the fact that disagreeing will make one unpopular.

Ideas, especially important ones that effect the course of people's lives and the course of history, should be examined vigorously.  In fact, I would argue that we all have a moral duty to do so rather than leave ourselves and our fellow humans to suffer the negative effect of incorrect ideas.

I am not intolerant of any person solely because of his or her beliefs.  Not once have I ever treated anyone unfairly or done them any harm because of their beliefs.  I am, however, intolerant of conclusions reached without proper evidence or logic. 

I am also intolerant of those who would not only defend such non-thinking but actually try to force me to accept it--believe me, they have tried--and then seek to harm me for refusing to do so and for refusing to pretend that their belief makes any sense.

If one man has a belief in a supernatural being, he is insane, if ten people do, it's a cult, if a hundred million or more do, it's a respected religion.  The only thing that has changed in those scenarios is the literal power of the believers to punish those who dare to speak up about their lack of logic and evidence.  In short, religion and the idea that it deserves any respect at all is entirely based on the fallacy that might makes right.  It is bullying, pure and simple.  Bullying in support of the irrational, which I think is evil or, at least, bound to result in evil.

Religion is so ludicrous and so evil (and I use that word with deliberate intent) that it is difficult to discuss it without sounding like you are using invective.  It is, at best, morally indistinguishable from racism of the worst sort.

Furthermore, given the way in which atheists have been treated by the religious and the way I, personally, have been treated, I think we have every right to use a bit of invective.  Some things and some people deserve a name and, in fact, require a name as a part of our moral judgment.  A person convicted of a felony is called a felon.  A person who believes in the invisible magic man in the sky and believes the rest of us should be forced to adhere to what the invisible magic man's earthly representatives say that "He" has dictated deserve a name.

They deserve every bit of ridicule and invective we can heap upon them--and more.

They are intolerant bullies and they have no right to be.  We non-believers have every right to defend ourselves against them.  Defending yourself against those who would harm you, who would take away your freedom and force you live in accordance with their beliefs upon threat of physical or economic violence, is not intolerance.  It is the most basic of human rights.

If believers were willing to mind their own business and keep their religion to themselves, I would have no problem with them or their religion.  Religious people who consider their religion a private matter and who do not think it should be forced on others receive only my pity.  I see them as victims of a massive con game.  But, such people seem too rare in my experience.  The majority have no doubt that their views should be forced on us all--even if they have learned not to say so openly.

My personal experience, current events, and history show, however, that they are always seeking to force their superstitions on others.  They want to remake the world based on their religion because they simply can't comprehend that their fantasies are not realities--which is the very definition of delusion.  Their intolerance is inevitable and inherent in the fact that their entire worldview is an ego driven delusion that they have an emotional need to maintain--an emotional need that supersedes virtually all of their other needs and most definitely supersedes any feeling they might have that they owe a duty to respect others.

For most of my adult life I have given the religious more tolerance than they have given me--by far.  They have repaid me by showing me extreme intolerance while at the same time daring to accuse me of intolerance.  My experience is typical.  Historically and morally, their behavior is the equivalent of Nazis accusing liberal Jews of intolerance--and, then, using that bogus accusation as an excuse to be intolerant.  Such behavior is a clear sign of the extent of their outrageous intentions:  They will go to any lengths to rationalize their desire to "do away" with us by whatever means necessary.

I have no duty to be tolerant of the intolerant.  Nor does any other civilized person.  Anyone who is tolerant of the intolerant is simply setting himself, and civilization, up for destruction.  Such a person has forfeited his right to self-defense and failed in his moral duty to protect others from injustice and other harm.

God: Narcissistic Psychopath?

Frankly, this god character sounds a lot like an ex-boyfriend who should be subject to a restraining order.  He stalks those who reject him, punishes them all out of proportion to any actual offense, and says it's all their fault because they rejected his "love". What kind of source of morality could such a person be?

Summary of Creationist Thinking

Fundamentalist Atheists?

Sometimes one hears believers and even other non-believers calling some atheists "fundamentalists".  I think the use of that term with regard to atheists is not only inaccurate but offensive on several levels.

Here is the definition from dictionary.com:
Fundamentalism–noun
 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

The first two definitions clearly have no application to atheists in any way shape or form.  They do tell us, however, where this particular term came from:  A religious movement of extreme rigidity in its numerous doctrines and principles.

Given that atheism doesn't have a set of doctrines and principles (and thus doesn't fit even the third definition of fundamentalism from dictionary.com) but rather has only one principle, then the use of such term regarding an atheist must always be inaccurate.  Thus, one possible reply would be:

"Atheists can't be fundamentalists because, there are no atheist 'fundamentals' for us to adhere to.  We simply don't believe in a god."

If atheists strictly adhere to one principle--that we think there is no god--that does not make us "fundamentalists"; it makes us atheists.  But, what else could we possibly do?  If we don't strictly adhere to that one principle, then we would not be atheists, we would be agnostics.  Thus, at best, the use of "fundamentalist" is simply redundant.

We are being chastised for not having an "open mind" in circumstances where the evidence (or lack thereof) is in.  As I have explained before, this can only be based on some sort of implicit assumption that we have to have absolute positive proof of god's nonexistence in order to be atheists and that we have to take seriously the possibility that solipsism is reality (that we live in a universe comparable to the one in "The Matrix" only with an invisible magic man rather than machines pulling our strings).

This is one of many reasons I find the use of the term with regard to atheists offensive.  We simply can't win.  Merely being atheists makes us fundamentalists by that "logic".  You can say:

"If not being agnostic makes me an atheist fundamentalist, then you are saying that simply being an atheist makes me an atheist fundamentalist.  That makes 'fundamentalist' redundant and therefore mere name calling."

In addition, having spent a great deal of time among true fundamentalists and having suffered at their hands, I find such name-calling highly offensive.  Some atheists may find it amusing because most of them are smart enough to see that the term has no application to them.

"Sorry, fundamentalism is a christian religious movement.  Simply insisting on a rational approach to the world doesn't begin to resemble the depth and breadth of their rigidity."

I also find it offensive because, when theists say that atheists are fundamentalists they are using that term incorrectly, which indicates they are simply trying to be offensive.  Oftentimes trying to be offensive is enough to actually be offensive, even if you look a fool in the process.  You can make that point by saying:

"You know that term doesn't apply; you are just trying to be offensive."

Such inaccurate name calling does not add anything to the discussion.  At best, it is simply the spewing of venom.  At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to shout the other person down--to cow him with the threat of being labeled with an epithet that carries a social stigma.

This is the most common purpose with which the "atheist fundamentalist" label is wielded.  It is yet another attempt to protect religion from critical analysis through the use of social pressure--otherwise known as bullying.  Thus, use of that term is little better than censorship, with a hint of a threat of social ostracism or worse for the person on the receiving end.  For that reason alone, I would think that most atheists would find it offensive.

Furthermore, given that logically the only conclusion one can reach is that god doesn't exist, using a term like "atheist fundamentalist" is a bit like calling a chemist a "chemistry fundamentalist" because he thinks the notions of medieval alchemy were ridiculous.  Or calling a psychiatrist a "sanity fundamentalist" because he thinks that people who think they are receiving message from outer space aliens through the fillings in their teeth are mentally ill. You can use these analogies to make that point:

"Is a chemist a 'chemistry fundamentalist' because he ridicules notions of alchemy?"

The principles that brought me to atheism are the same ones that drive science: Objectivity and rationality.  If adhering to those makes me a "fundamentalist", then so be it.  So far as I am concerned, that would be the same as calling me fundamentally sane.  Once again, you can use this idea to drive the point home:

"Adhering to notions of objectivity and rationality make me a 'fundamentalist'?  That's like calling me fundamentally sane."

Sometimes the epithet is meant to imply that atheists are at fault for not examining the "evidence" for theism, then I can only point out that there is no evidence to examine (other than the mountain of evidence tending to prove that religions are man made).   I can also point out that atheists, along with many others, have been diligently searching for evidence to support theism and will continue to do so.  Those same principles of objectivity and rationality require that this search continue for the indefinite future, but they do not require that we reserve judgment in the meantime.

Calling atheists fundamentalists is really just a euphemism for calling us intolerant.  Like most instances of "name calling", such as calling us "intolerant", calling us fundamentalist is just another way of trying to pressure us into shutting up or adopting the idea that we have to have absolute proof that god doesn't exist.