Philosophy, Film, Politics, Etc.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Warning To Those Who Follow Rhology

In my last post, I used the word "scum" repeatedly to emphasize my lack of respect for Rhology's moral system. I do not apologize for this, and I do not take any of it back. However, I realize that by so aggressively criticizing Rhology's moral sensibility in this manner, I may have made it hard for some people to understand the point I was making. So here I will try to make the point again in less aggressive language.

For whatever reason, Rhology thinks my "moral system" is very similar to the Judeo-Christian one. And, he says, this can be explained by the fact that I have been "created in God's image."

This suggests that a person who adheres to a different moral system--Muslim, perhaps--was not created in God's image. This would mean that, as far as human rights go, Muslims are no more deserving than chimpanzees.

Rhology says that "*If Christianity is true,*" then he has an absolute moral authority. And yet, the only reason he gives us for believing that Christianity is true is his inability to understand morality without Christianity.

Rhology thinks that morality amounts to doing whatever God has instructed in the Bible. "Morality" is thus just another word for playing by God's rules. It has nothing to do with what is good for humanity, or what is good according to reason and common sense. No, it only has to do with what the Bible says is good, and no arguments or questions can be raised to challenge that.

This kind of thinking is fascist. It is a negation of morality, because morality is not simply playing by some set of rules written in some book. No, morality is a process whereby people justify their actions to one another. It is a social phenomenon, and it is based in physiology.

I have explained this, but Rhology will continue to deny it. He will continue to assert that I have no grounds for understanding morality, that my worldview cannot support morality, and that I have no legitimate reasons for rejecting his "God."

The fact is, I have explained morality in very simple and rational terms, and I have provided a strong argument for why I reject religious belief. Conversely, Rhology has defined his moral authority (TGOTB) in contradictory terms. Though I have pointed this out, Rhology has not defended himself or his definition of "God."

Rhology suggests that I think morality is "whatever is good for humanity and civilization." No, that is not how I define the word "morality." Lots of things are good for humanity and civilization, but aren't morality. Water, for example, is not morality.

Morality is a process of deciding what is best for humanity and civilization. One can approach morality rationally, by adhering to the requirements of reason and evidence; or, one can approach it irrationally, by denying the possibility of rational argument.

Rhology's approach to morality is irrational, and it goes against the very foundations of moral judgment. Though he wishes to take the moral high ground, Rhology is rejecting the very need to justify his views. He thinks he's above morality.

Rhology would like to live in a dictatorship, where all possible judgments about life are constricted to those written down ages ago, and where anyone who disagrees with those ancient dictates is condemned. He spites the potential morality has to make all of our lives better.

For these reasons, I have concluded that Rhology's misunderstanding of atheism and morality presents a danger to the world.

I hope this is clear.