Download MP3
16.5M 24:07

The following is a review of Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior – A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics:

The first time I read this book (UPB), I didn’t really “get” it. I mean, I saw the logic and the proof and thought, “Hey, that’s kind of neat.” I was not able to access the implications that the proof of this theory would have in my life and in the greater world.

I have since re-read UPB. While I still struggle with the full range of the implications for my life, I think I get it (certainly more now than I have before).

The null zone concept is brilliant as well as fascinating! I now have the image in my mind of a “null zone” being forcibly inserted between the “little truths” and the “Great Truths”, which disconnect abstraction from practice in the minds of individuals.

This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate to anybody why this is a multi-generational project. Once you’ve had abstractions forcibly disconnected from practice within your mind, it is a trek through the fires of ten thousand hells to reconnect them.

Also of incredible resonance to me is when Molyneux discusses the emergent properties of morality within society as opposed to the imposition of whim-based morality from a centralized authority. This is the fundamental “reversal” of intuition that either Dawkins or Dennett (I can’t remember quite where I read it) has described when it comes to the science of evolution; that life, the universe, and everything do not proceed from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Complexity and order are emergent properties of matter over time, hence it makes sense that morality and social order are emergent properties of human society over time.

Eradicating that “null zone” within my own mind and becoming ever more aware of my top-down moral standards is the horrible, horrible consequence of UPB. The upside, however, is that if, one day, I have children… I will not inflict a “null zone” upon them and will equip them to be resistant to it!

I haven’t found any flaws. I think that Stefan Molyneux has done it.

While child abuse most certainly begins in the home, it does not remain locked up in a secret room. If physical or emotional abuse is not addressed, it will find its expression in other areas of life.

For those who do not face the abuse they endured, they will become vectors of abuse themselves. If they endured sexual abuse or humiliation, they will inflict it upon their children. If they were hit as children, they will hit their own. If they were belittled or ignored, they will do the same to their kids.

But it does not stop with one’s children. The failure to address one’s own suffering can also cause one to seek abuse at the hands of others. Hence, one goes through life with the belief that an abstract “greater power” is necessary for existence. For a particular majority, this is called “God.” For another majority that does not necessarily intersect, but largely does so, this is called “Government.” These two entities are merely the adult mappings of the category known as Parents.

When one is a child, one’s parents are much larger, much more powerful, and much more knowledgeable than the child, in many ways. However, as a child’s mind develops, he begins to ask questions of his parents that are not met with honesty, but are met with hostility. The child interprets this hostility as a failing on his part, as some innate wrongness that must be corrected… if this illusion is never addressed, this child will grow up and turn to Gods and Governments to be corrected.

The biggest problem here is that despite the fact that Gods and Governments do not exist, they are represented by individuals who themselves are operating under illusions. There is nothing that separates a priest or a politician from a parishioner or a plebian biologically or morally, yet the former participate in the greater illusions in order to survive at the expense of the latter.

If one continues to think that Gods and Governments are so different, consider the following parallel: in the Roman Catholic church, many priests take advantage of their power to molest young boys. This has always been something of an open secret, but it blew up in the media only recently. What was seen as scandalous by many was the fact that the Roman Catholic church did not fire these priests, but transferred them and protected them from criminal prosecution!

In state-run educational systems–especially in some (if not most or all) areas of the United States–it is very difficult to fire an underperforming or even a dangerous teacher. Those that are underperforming may very well be shuffled around, while those that are dangerous may be paid to sit in a room. They are being protected from the consequences of their actions and, in the case of the latter, from criminal prosecution!

In any other scenario, an individual that is a danger to children that is placed in charge of children would be removed from that position and charged with criminal misconduct! In an ideal world, whatever organization pursuing justice would realize this individual was deeply disturbed and would offer treatment and counseling as it would be incredibly likely that this person was abused as a child in some way.

If we start working to get people to wake up, to stop abusing their children, then it’s possible that these illusions will begin to disappear, because they will not be needed. In that time, we (or our descendants) will be able to live as entirely voluntary beings, coerced by no one because no coercion is needed in order to accomplish the various things that need to be done.

I may or may not have had an official “coming out” regarding my thoughts on religion and such… and the labels are understood to be different things by different people, so I’m going to try to illuminate my position and perhaps even why I hold it.

Strictly speaking, my position is more of a non-position. I am actually not interested in making any claims. What I will say is that my position is based on the evidence of my senses and checking the inner world of my mind against the outer, observable world.

For example, if I believe invisible pink mongooses (mongeese?) are tapdancing on the moon, there really isn’t anything to substantiate that claim. Just about every person out there would ask, “Well, what’s your proof?” If I say that they cannot be detected in any way, but that I know that they’re there, my belief is going to be dismissed as fantasy.

In fact, “invisible pink” itself gives lie to the belief, because it’s not possible for something to be invisible and pink! One does not need to pursue the argument beyond that immediate contradiction.

When it comes to God, the definitions given are often immediately contradictory, such as when God is omniscient and defines certain human actions as Sin. If God knows everything that is going to happen, then he knows when I, for example, am about to tell a lie. If he knows I am going to tell this lie, then that is what will happen. Since I cannot escape telling a lie, I cannot justly be held responsible for having told a lie. Yet, God defines this lie as Sin and then I am deserving of punishment. So, then, I am held responsible for an action for which I cannot justly be held responsible!

Religious folk attempt to undo this contradiction by inventing concepts like “Free Will,” but that is just a mask over the initial contradiction. Claiming that we have “Free Will” but retaining God’s omniscience does not resolve the contradiction at all.

Usually, by this point, religious people will say, “Well, you just don’t understand God” and will usually quote the Bible verse that goes something like “God works in mysterious ways.” Well, by that point, they’re just saying, “You’re stupid!” I’m not sure that works to increase my understanding, and it certainly turns me off.

But even if the contradictions in the definition were not an issue, there really isn’t any evidence for God at all. The best I’ve ever seen anybody come up with that didn’t have some sort of naturalistic explanation behind it or wasn’t an outright lie (or fantastical guessing) was that you just “feel” it in your heart. Well… even when I was a Christian, 99% of the time, I did not “feel” God at all. Even when we were singing or praying or whatever… I did not feel God or anything even close to a glimmer. There were a few moments I might have felt something, but that certainly isn’t definitive, and surely God could, if he wanted to, make sure that I did feel his presence. I was certainly open to it for years, and he didn’t take advantage then. God presumably knows the kind of person I am, so he has to know that if I was convinced, I would likely have stayed convinced.

But the existence or non-existence of God is not the issue for me. Really, when it comes to that question, God either exists or it doesn’t. If God exists, then God has to somehow align with the universe in some logical fashion. It might be a logic based on facts we do not yet understand, but we don’t even have inklings of what those facts might be.

What is the issue for me is that when the answer to a question is “God,” then the questioning stops. When somebody asks, “How did the world get here?” and a priest or a parent or whoever says, “God made it,” then there really isn’t much of a drive to actually find out what the world is like. You want evidence for this claim? Look at Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. There was virtually no curiosity about the world, and for hundreds of years, nobody asked the question, “What is the world like?” It was only when people began to seriously doubt the answer, “God made it,” that science and rationality really took off. How do you think people get to live well into their 70s, 80s, and 90s with all manner of ailments and such that would have killed people even as recently as 20 years ago? It wasn’t because people believed in God–what rubbish! It was because people were willing to say, “I do not know,” in response to the big questions, and proceed from there to answer smaller questions.

It is this utter lack of curiosity that strikes me the most when it comes to religion. If you think you know how to get somewhere, you’re not going to ask directions. You’re going to drive as if you know. However, not only will you get yourself lost, you will get yourself much, much further away from your intended destination. Until you admit that you don’t know, you will never get to where you’re going.

So, I am an atheist primarily because there is no positive reason for me to believe in God–the definitions are self-contradictory, and the one or two that aren’t have no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Secondarily, even if this wasn’t a concern, when I look at the history of the world and the effects a belief in God has in other people’s lives, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to associate myself with that sort of thing. A belief in God is a symptom of the refusal to say, “I don’t know.” Such a refusal is a very dangerous thing and, essentially, destroys lives.

Finally, the refusal to say, “I don’t know,” does not come naturally. Children in particular know that they don’t know. That’s why children tend to ask so many questions. However, when a child is given a fraudulent answer instead of honesty (saying, “God made it,” instead of, “I don’t know”) and then is punished for his curiosity if he pursues the line of questioning, he begins to be infected with the same “brain virus” and learns that to say, “I don’t know,” is a moral weakness and must be suppressed in others.

What came first — the atheist or the childless home?

Part of me doesn’t even think this article deserves any comment, but the other part of me is nudging me, saying, “c’mon, you know you want to.”

The hypothesis put forward is: the decline in fertility is the cause of secularization. Apparently, this is some sort of reversal, but I don’t know anybody that is claiming the opposite (it seems to be one of those “common sense” things that, when you think about it, really doesn’t make any sense).

I would posit that the two trends–declining religiosity and declining birthrates (among whites, anyway)–are related, but not causally related. If there is a causal link between them, I would say that it’s a relatively weak influence in comparison to what I’m going to propose.

Obviously, the reasons why people decide to identify themselves with atheism are varied. For me, it was about intellectual honesty and consistency, but I might be in the minority. However, the general trend of being very religious has a fairly strong inverse correlation with individual happiness. The best system so far for producing individual happiness is the free market (this has a very specific definition and does not include corporatism nor mercantilism, also known as fascism). Basically, if your needs are provided for and you are generally happy, you do not need to spend your time being religious as there is nothing for you to escape.

The overall decline of birthrate is related to the rise of the free market as well. Prior to industrialization, if you wanted to have children support you in your old age, you needed to have quite a lot of them, especially since many of them died in infancy and childhood. As medicine improved and the free market began to open up more opportunities for people (less grueling work and higher-paying jobs), people did not need to have as many children in order to survive. There are, of course, other reasons to have children, but this is definitely a factor.

However, as time went on and state power grew (that is, the level of taxation increased), it became that much more difficult for people to have more children than they might have had otherwise. At the very bottom of the rung, of course, we are aware of the welfare-mom stereotype, which is another effect of state power and would most likely not survive very long if the welfare system was not around.

The biggest blow came when the workforce was opened to women. Instead of increasing overall household income, the state was able to raise taxes to the point where both parents in many homes had to work. The option of staying home was severely curtailed for a large number of workers, and so, one may well decide to not have children at all in order to spare them the latchkey child scenario.

If there is a causal link between religiosity and fertility, it pales in comparison to the forces of the free market, which provide positive incentives to have fewer children (reduced necessity for elderly care, better quality of life overall for all concerned), and to the forces of the state, which provide negative incentives to have fewer children (increased taxation, forcing both parents to work just to get by), unless, of course, you are on welfare, in which case your children will almost certainly live their adult lives in the same situation and will almost certainly not escape from it.

I’m one of those people that likes to know that somebody is going to come over. When somebody knocks on the door and I’m not expecting anybody, I immediately get this attitude of, “Who is it, and what the hell do they want?”

So when I got to the bottom of the stairs and saw that I had Mormons, I very nearly just didn’t open up the door. However, I wanted it to be perfectly clear that they were not welcome. So, I opened the door, let the guy give his one-line spiel, said, “No, thank you,” and shut and locked the door.

Yeah, that was it. The poor saps were pretty dead-looking… both because it looked like they had walked to my apartment (from where, I have no idea) but also the way they looked at me, and by the way that the one guy spoke.

I suppose that, if I was in a better mood and felt more prepared to do so, I could have invited them in and attempted to plant the seeds of doubt in their heads, but I’m not going to take the risk of letting two strangers into my apartment when I’m feeling irritable and it’s as hot inside as it is outside.

I did feel a little sorry for them–after all, they are walking around, trying to win converts for their sorry religion, and they just look totally dead on the inside. They looked pretty young, too. I wonder how much brutalization it takes to cause two young adults to walk around in the blistering heat wearing dress shoes, full slacks, and long-sleeved shirts in an attempt to “spread the word?”

The Greatest Story Ever Told?

Watch: Youtube: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

The following is a letter I have composed but not yet sent to my former band director from high school. Just so everybody is aware, I went to a private Christian high school.

I have to confess that I’m not quite sure why I’m writing this or what I hope to achieve by this letter. That’s part of why I am posting it here. I think that this man is fairly reasonable, but I’m not really sure how to sound that out before telling him these very personal things. It’s not like he and I are all that close… but at the same time, I want him to understand that telling me to find a “‘good’ church” isn’t the sort of thing I want to hear. I suppose I could just ignore it all the same… or I could just respond with, “I’m an atheist, stop bugging me,” but my experience with some people in the past has told me that ignoring it or giving curt replies only seems to encourage them.

I think that he is otherwise reasonable. He’s pretty sharp, too. Perhaps I’m looking for a challenge, as well? At this very moment, I really don’t know… which, again, is why I’m posting it here instead of sending it out right away.

Oh, and he asked about the FSP because I had mentioned it offhand earlier, hence the note near the bottom, and the reference to Walden.

---

Letter to Mr. D

---

  It's funny how things change over time.  It's only been ten years since I
graduated Eastern Christian High School, but I'd be hard-pressed to identify
myself with the same terminology then as now.

  That's just the way life goes, I suppose.  People don't change often, and
when they do, they change slowly.  Rarely does a person's core personality
change, and overnight conversions are rarely more than skin-deep.

  I have undergone a number of changes since high school, especially over the
past four years.  While some things are still in flux (either they're too
important or too unimportant to nail down), there have been a few areas of my
life which have settled to a fair degree.

  One of the things I have kept in mind over the past several years is to rid
myself of hypocrisy... to rid my mind of contradictions.  I wish to ensure
that I am under no delusions and that I see reality for reality, and fakery
for fakery.

  Reality is a sopping, bloody mess.  It also includes nigh-inexpressible
beauty and grandeur.  Any delusions that stand in the way ultimately
disconnect me from the world around me.

  What I have discovered is that I cannot trust the mere words of other
individuals.  I cannot trust a man who says he has the word of God.  I have
ceased to be convinced of God's existence.  To wit, I am an atheist.

  Prior to my deconversion, my greatest hope was to go to heaven.  Hence, I
spent a lot of time watching my life circle the drain.  I was so miserable
here, and the promise so great, that I very nearly took my own life.

  Yet doubt kept me bound to this reality.  I wasn't certain of heaven.  I
wasn't sure that I'd still be around if my current life slipped away.  I had
absolutely no guarantee that I could brick it and still have existence.

  Life hasn't been easy since that time.  But life wasn't easy before it,
either.  Since that time, I have had multiple attacks of misery, and I've had
to go most of them entirely alone.  But the difference now is that I have
something to live for.

  It is nothing external to me.  It's not my girlfriend, my job, my
possessions, or even my cat.  What I have to live for is myself.  I can derive
no greater hope for my life than that which springs forth from the observation
of daily beauty, the satisfaction of production, and the camaraderie of
friends.

  I am telling you these things out of respect for you as an individual, and
as a friend.  I hold out no hope or desire to change your mind on these
matters on a personal basis.  What you believe about reality and existence is
entirely your own business and nobody else's.  I chose to share mine with you
because I presently believe that, if you don't understand my decision, you
will at least respect it.

  Insofar as the Free State Project goes, it is meant to be a vehicle for
politically-active individuals looking to reduce the involvement of government
in private life.  New Hampshire is their chosen starting ground.  I came here
initially because I thought I might be able to contribute, but I was mistaken
with regards to the political activity that would have been expected of its
members.  I don't think that the FSP will ultimately succeed in promoting
freedom, not as I understand it.  It will, at best, replace the current
leaders with their own set of leaders, which is going to accomplish nothing in
the long run.

  There is much more to say here, but I shall leave it for another time.
Interestingly enough, I am far closer to Walden than you may have realized
when you first wrote.