Tomorrowland vs. the Bible
Because there is such a dearth of family-friendly movies, I took my son to see the George Clooney movie, “Tomorrowland.” On the one hand, the film was very uplifting. I’m sure the people behind
thought they were doing a great thing. They were telling people (especially young kids) that so long as enough poets, artists, scientists, doctors, and other creative people kept their dreams alive, then humanity would make it. The only true threat to the world was if the forces of cynicism and doubt became self-fulfilling prophecies and crippled humans from solving–through technology and compassion–the genuine problems facing us. John Lennon and Walt Disney would have loved this movie.
This message of optimistic, secular humanism is diametrically opposed to the message of the Bible. In this book, we see a picture of humanity bound for utter destruction if left to its own devices. It’s only through the intervention of God Himself (ultimately through His Son) that any can be saved.
For whatever reason, it was only until fairly recently that I realized why so many people reject Christianity: It’s not simply that they “don’t believe in fairy tales,” but for many people they are offended to hear that they need a savior. “How dare you suggest I’m not basically a good person. If there were a heaven, I’m sure I would qualify. I don’t go around raping and murdering! Look at how well I stack up against some of the real scumbags out there!”
In this post I don’t hope to challenge such a view with a head-on assault. Instead, let me make a simple observation. Some of the wisest, most observant students of the human condition–I’m thinking of wits like Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken, but also currently living people whom I won’t mention by name–were extremely cynical and downright misanthropes. Indeed, when I encounter young libertarians who have just discovered the theoretical works on a free society, or who are gushing on Facebook about the latest “liberty candidate,” I sigh with regret because I know they are going to have that enthusiasm knocked out of them by 20 years of learning how stubborn and cruel humans really are. I’m not even that old, but from my vantage point I think it would take a miracle to save the human race.
But that’s why I can still have the hope of victory, and go to the trenches to spread the truth as I see it, regardless of the short-term prospects. Because I believe in miracles.
I haven’t seen the movie and suspect that even if I did I might not like it.
But given the choice between the world views represented in the following quotes from from your post
(1) “The only true threat to the world was if the forces of cynicism and doubt became self-fulfilling prophecies and crippled humans from solving–through technology and compassion–the genuine problems facing us.”
(2) “This message of optimistic, secular humanism is diametrically opposed to the message of the Bible. In this book, we see a picture of humanity bound for utter destruction if left to its own devices. It’s only through the intervention of God Himself (ultimately through His Son) that any can be saved.”
I would undoubtedly choose (1).
And when you say:
” Indeed, when I encounter young libertarians who have just discovered the theoretical works on a free society, or who are gushing on Facebook about the latest “liberty candidate,” I sigh with regret because I know they are going to have that enthusiasm knocked out of them by 20 years of learning how stubborn and cruel humans really are”
I’m thinking – Its not humans who are stubborn and cruel – its our self-appointed leaders who use “cynicism and doubt” in order to build a cruel society. And I hate to say it but they often use the threat (or promise) of “intervention of God Himself ” as a tool in their theoretical armor.
“I sigh with regret because I know they are going to have that enthusiasm knocked out of them by 20 years of learning how stubborn and cruel humans really are.”
Knowing that the stubborn-ness and cruelty is perpetuated by unsound money, we know that it will be impossible to win without returning to a commodity money.
Many good things will follow from this, and in spite of the cruelty, because greed is not more powerful than economic law.
Here are a couple of things to consider toward this end:
(Major Freedom once asked how he would know how to price his goods and services after the coming crash. Here yo go.)
1. Spending paper money, the second you get it, on goods and services provided by those who pay you, is functionally equivalent to barter. So you will not actually be defrauding them by using paper money in this way. It would be like they never gave it to you.
2. Even if you were somehow able to use gold to buy goods, yourself, there would always exist prices in terms of paper money that an earner of paper money would be willing to offer for the same good. So since valuations are mistakenly attempted by others in terms of paper money, whether you like it or not, it would not *necessarily* be hypocritical for a hard money advocate to quote prices in terms of paper money. It would only be hypocritical to pay, or accept payment, in paper money (except as modified by #1).
There is a way to see these points as contradictory, so just know that I have already taken that into consideration.
Also know that while this can look like it would require a high velocity of paper money, thereby playing into the Keynsians’ hands, it doesn’t have to, if you think outside the box.
(It turns out that the poor are in the best position to use these insights.)
There is a third option. That of an atheistic moral nihilism, which rejects both views as mere fantasy. One thing this view has in common with your view, Bob, is virtually the same exact response it gets from secular humanists:
“How dare you suggest I’m not basically a good person. If there were a heaven, I’m sure I would qualify. I don’t go around raping and murdering! Look at how well I stack up against some of the real scumbags out there!”
People’s self worth is all wrapped up in their humanistic belief system, and when someone challenges it by suggesting that maybe their life is not as important or meaningful as they would like it to be, the response is very commonly anger and hostility. To paraphrase Barack Obama, it’s not surprising that they get bitter and cling to secular humanism. Very predictable response, similar to how you can predict a mouse’s movements in a maze.
Moral nihilism is impossible to advocate without contradiction.
Your post is based on the presumption that we ought to think according to specific logical and semantic rules, as well as that each individual ought to do whatever they want.
If moral nihilism were for some reason possible to advocate, then your whole post should be taken as meaningless symbols.
Telling me I am wrong about the above would not be a suggestion that I ought to change my mind.
“Telling me I am wrong about the above would not be a suggestion that I ought to change my mind.”
That is your interpretation of my intentions. Nothing I wrote above explicitly says that therefore you ‘ought to’ not believe in certain ideas. I am simply saying that you are incorrect, nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that is what you think I am implying.
Door three is that we’re capable of wonderful things and terrible things, that working for the wonderful things matters precisely because we’re capable of both, and that a misanthrope isn’t unique in understanding what evil humanity is capable of, he’s distinguished by his pessimism about what humanity will do.
So it’s fine to whip a few misanthropes out but there are also tons of careful observers of the human condition that are eternal optimists too.
If you miss either that we’re capable of wonderful things or that we’re capable of terrible things I don’t think you’re a very careful observer of humanity.
Benchmarks are different too. The theist’s primary concern is that we don’t meet God’s standard. Of course no atheist is offended that a theist tells us we are not godlike. Atheists aren’t going around telling everyone we are!
The atheist benchmark is where we’ve been and where we’re going. Progress is much clearer from that benchmark.
I think you’ve diagnosed the atheist critique wrong (or perhaps you’re just surrounded by extremely entitled atheists). I don’t think it’s so much “I’m great – how dare you say I don’t deserve paradise”. Instead it’s usually “Holy sh*t what have I ever done that you think I should be tortured for eternity! You’re a psycho!”
I mean you talk about the capacity for human evil – I assume you have things like Stalin’s repression and Hitler’s holocaust in mind as chief (although by no means exhaustive) examples.
In most cases this evil was a bullet to the head, a gas chamber, or a couple years of hard labor before death from exhaustion meted out to normal people – not perfect, not “murderers and rapists” as you describe it either. And you (rightly) identify this treatment as evil. But you think it’s crazy to raise objections to those same people and torturing them for eternity.
How does that work out Bob? Because God’s the boss and he makes the rules and sets the standards? Who appointed him? He appointed himself? This is Reichstag arson talk.
Actually I think they got a vote on that one.
I don’t typically criticize your religiousness very directly but it takes some real stones to in the same post:
1. Act like people that raise some objections to this whole idea are acting entitled.
2. Make a big deal about how evil humanity can be torturing each other and all that and then,
3. Throw in with a guy that will literally torture you for eternity even if you lead a relatively mundane existence merely because you don’t worship him.
“I think you’ve diagnosed the atheist critique wrong (or perhaps you’re just surrounded by extremely entitled atheists). I don’t think it’s so much “I’m great – how dare you say I don’t deserve paradise”. Instead it’s usually “Holy sh*t what have I ever done that you think I should be tortured for eternity! You’re a psycho!””
I don’t consider this accurate. If you look out in society at political debates, it is indeed mostly a self of extreme entitlement. Many, possibly even most atheists (except for moral nihilists like myself and libertarians) believe they are entitled to everything from free college to free birth control. And virtually every human instinct, desire, or action is said to be a cause for ‘celebration.’ Ever heard something like ‘human sexuality should be celebrated!’ rather than something like ‘human sexuality is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’, it’s just something that’s there.’?
And throughout your post, you are not using the terms ‘theist’ and ‘atheist’ correctly. You should have substituted terms like ‘religious’ and ‘secular humanists’ instead.
“In this book, we see a picture of humanity bound for utter destruction if left to its own devices. It’s only through the intervention of God Himself (ultimately through His Son) that any can be saved.”
Really? I think that depends on how you define “utter destruction” and sort of takes for granted the assumption that God exists, right?
At what point in the Bible is humanity truly at risk of say, anihilating the entire species? I don’t recall anything like this. Rather, it was always “humanity has degenerated into a wretched state that God disapproves of” and the disapproval of God is assumed to be a pretty bad thing.
The intervention of God doesn’t save us from “ourselves,” rather, it saves us from the consequences of disobeying God. But that’s not a really big deal if God doesn’t actually exist, right? I suppose you could argue that in the long run people are happier and more fulfilled if they live according to God’s rules (even if he doesn’t actually exist) than if they live in violence and deubauchery, but being less happy than you otherwise could be isn’t quite the same as “bound for utter destruction”
Great stuff, Bob keep it up!
I however passed on watching Tomorrowland, having the foresight to see the humanistic vision it would likely portray. It is the norm these days, think Interstellar (very entertaining!).
The Bible says we will destroy ourselves left to our own devices and looking around, I don’t see how anyone cannot see it. We are under the threat of nuclear war. GMOs can theoretically take over the global food supply. The Pentagon is shipping anthrax around the world. Etc…
You’ve heard of the new Fox TV show called Lucifer, eh? Just when you think you can’t get any better…
http://io9.com/trailer-for-lucifer-tv-show-is-exactly-the-right-amount-1703737017
So why would people believe in God:
1. There’s a supernatural extremely powerful entity that will punish people who sin? Nope. For an all-powerful, all-present God He is sure invisible and impotent. So there’s a pretty good chance He doesn’t exist.
2. People need God to be good? The much earlier generations wouldn’t have understood such a concept rather they believe morality was defined by God than something that made you feel warm and fuzzy. Hence such people had no problem with God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son.
3. Some people need a concept of a supernatural stern father who will beat them down hard if they mess up in life? That’s sounds about right. A lot of people need have some sort of punisher to keep them in line. Perhaps this is why fundamentalist Christianity and Islam has strong followings. A lot of people need the threat of punishment to keep them in line they can’t imagine being good for its own sake.
One problem is that religious people tend to view the world through a prism of their own religion. So Bob sees an atheist as rejecting Christianity, whereas this atheist sees himself as rejecting all Gods, of which the Christian one is only a small sub-category, not worthy of more attention than Vishnu or Odin.
Gil says “A lot of people need the threat of punishment to keep them in line they can’t imagine being good for its own sake.” I think this is basically true, and brings us back to the Prisoner’s Dilemma and group selection. Religion allows us to get round the paradox that groups with “altruistic” individuals grow faster than groups without, but within the group the non-altruist will always do better. In PD, cooperation is basically altruism. Small societies can enforce cooperation by punishment of defecting individuals, such as vampire bats do. Any society that grows beyond a few score people needs a new mechanism to promote cooperation, as there are too many people for the tit-for-tat mechanism to work. If people cannot remember, or do not further interact with a person who has cheated them, then a rational self interested individual will defect. All groups should eventually be taken over by non-altruists, and hence do less well than a group containing altruists. We see that all large societies have grown with a religion that promotes exactly such behaviour – often with the threat of punishment. Religions, although totally wrong, may therefore be very useful.
I remember reading an article a while ago about how the threat of punishment is a much more powerful motivator than the promise of reward. Namely religions with promise of Hell have a much better following than those that promise Heaven alone. I’d link it if I can find again. 😐
How do “religions that promise to kill you (in this life) if you don’t obey” stack up?
“I’m not even that old, but from my vantage point I think it would take a miracle to save the human race.”
The beauty of chan and daoism and all that jazz is that we don’t need to be saved; we only need to realize that humanity is as natural a thing as a sparrow or a rosebush or a bunch of helium, and we have a role to play in the cosmos, which doesn’t acknowledge these human categories of evil and good that we spend so much time chirping and gnashing our teeth about. It’s unlikely the dinosaurs fretted very much when they were going extinct, but it’ll be the rare human who doesn’t freak out when our extinction event occurs, whether that’s 100 years from now or 100,000.
That may not mesh easily with the brittle free-will advocacy of many an Objectivist (I’ve found libertarians to be surprisingly flexible about homunculus-style free will at the meta level), but it is tremendously relaxing to understand that every human being is a process and that the only distinction between the organism and its environment is one that we conjure up in anxious moments.
And re: politics and economics, marginal groups have a role to play even if no one ever listens to us and humanity goes to its grave without ever having a free society. The mockingbird doesn’t stop singing just because he thinks no one’s listening.