Se7en

Seven (or Se7en) is a movie that is extremely difficult to talk about. The entire movie begins with little characterization, background history, or even a developed story line. Yet, as the movie continues, the viewer suddenly finds it all coming together for an excellent depiction of the stupidity of life.

The movie has two main characters: Morgan Freeman, an experienced detective who is gloomy and “depressed” about reality, and Brad Pitt, who is a pompous new detective who thinks he can crack every case and yell at any superior he wants to. The story kicks into full gear with a murder of a man who must weigh at least 700 pounds, with the word “gluttony” written on the wall in blood. The movie cannot be defined as a detective genre, however; there is very little investigation into this particular movie. Rather, the story continues with a few more murders of the different deadly sins (such as gluttony) and focuses on the various character’s dialogue with each other.

Brad Pitt is overly emotional, has what Ender would call “hot anger”, and doesn’t listen to anyone. This comes to bite him in the back in so many different ways, highlighting the problem of excessive passion. Meanwhile Morgan Freeman appears so dispassionate that he really has no friends, despite having the largest concern for humanity through a rational outlook. This personal emotion vs. rational compassion juxtaposition is one of many fascinating themes.

The use of camera angles and music was equally incredible. The cinematography is absolutely excellent and adds to the incredible drama of the movie. There was a great contrast between lighter scenes and darker scenes, each time with some sort of meaning or the other. The setting was simple and only showed a few houses and locations, which added to the the theme of constant routine: waking up each day at the same time to the same world for the same purpose…living for the next day.

The central premise of the movie, however, is the stupidity of life. In the movie, seven murders are committed, all under the coordination of a single murderer. Each murder is for one of the deadly sins – gluttony, sloth, envy, etc. – and arguably each person deserved it. At the same time, almost all of the police force and general public is apathetic to the deaths, besides a superficial curiosity in what happened. People are horribly lame in the movie – and Morgan Freeman is delighted to tell us. Shockingly, the murderer is equally delighted to tell us. The murderer is extremely rational, well thought, well read, educated, the whole nine yards. He calculated his murders and has developed arguments to justify each one, while expressing little personal emotion but rational compassion for humanity. And as the movie shows, Brad Pitt, being so personally emotional leads to downfall. Rational compassion leads to victory.

Overall, the movie is a fantastic thriller and horribly depressing. It poses questions and demonstrates scenarios, but does not provide answers. If you expect to watch a movie that will make you a more wise person, this is the one. If you expect to watch a movie to enjoy it, I do not recommend. This movie mixes fear, depression, and gloominess altogether for a masterful insight into human sociology when it comes to morality.

Mulling over Relativism (Part 2)

Part 1

Relativism, in itself, in its truest form,  can be called rational. Relativism, in itself, can be called a reasonable conclusion. Yet relativism, in itself, is an inescapable hole. It is a dogma – a dogma that shrugs off questioning and free thought. It is a bottomless pit that can only be dug into, but not exited from…once the shovel breaks ground. 

Last post, we explained relativism as the belief that “nobody is objectively right or wrong.” The premise of mainstream relativism, although no one likes to say it, is that morals really aren’t that existent in the first place. That was clear and explained in Part 1.

And from that premise, we can draw inferences on the implications. When there is no real right and wrong, no true right and wrong, the question is raised on how one goes about deciding right and wrong. It would have to fall into, I think, a hedonistic or nihilistic attitude – the first being “be good because it feels good” and the second being “be good because human nature is a bull you can’t fight”. And whether it’s admitted or not, those are the only two bases to which someone could have relativist morality. Arguably, the nihilist one is hedonistic in its essence, too, which is similar to what I discussed on altruism.

And from the basis of hedonism, one would only question their values if it appealed to them to do so. For nihilism, it would never. And it is fair to say that those who like to question are few in numbers – the rest are dogmatic, and have no reason to care to not be. So where is the dogma, now? When a philosophy doesn’t bother with questioning, where is the intellectual endeavor, the desire to learn?  No where found.

In religious philosophies, and I won’t be so arbitrary as to say all, but in many, questioning is imperative. Learning is necessary. Inquiry is a way to the Divine. And there is no hole digging – there is stair climbing. Sure, one may question themselves out of faith. One may start to believe something just isn’t right about X or Y religion. And when they do so, they may fall to an agnosticism – possibly, then, leading to a relativism. The entire process was reasonable. To travel from faith to doubt, from absolute to relative, is normal and fine and in many cases the smartest move there is. Yet at the beginning of the relativist road is a trap. A hole, that when entered, may never be left again. For one when is led to believe questioning is unnecessary, why try? 

It is a sad loop that there isn’t much to stop from happening. Sure, X relativist can say that everyone should ponder, and continue to gain knowledge, and continue to question themselves. But X relativist has no right to tell Y relativist what to do”because nobody is right or wrong, [so] we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree” (that’s a contradiction in itself, but that’s for another day). And when it comes down to the masses, I’ll bet, most would be Y’s – living in mental comfort and contentment. “Philosophy is dead“, to some, and it would be a darn nice world if it was.

So relativism, to recap, so far, in its pragmatic and general form, is:

1) dogmatic

2) appealing – the easy way out

3) hedonism

And I thought religion was all that?

Mulling over relativism (Part 1)

Part 2

 Relativism, briefly, is the belief that “nobody is objectively right or wrong” and that “because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree.” Like the golden rule, it sounds like common sense and the rational approach to sensitive issues. Alas, I treat it with skepticism. In this post, I’m going to start with what we all agree about moral relativism and take readers step by step through the implications of this intriguing philosophy. Enjoy the ride!

———-

The premise of mainstream relativism, although no one likes to say it, is that morals really aren’t that existent in the first place. That’s a dangerous accusation Wikipedia and others try to stray from, and there are obvious reasons why. However, to say there is no such thing as “objective” morality is to say that morality is the converse: “subjective”. And to say morality is subjective leads to an interpretive anarchy – believe what you want to believe…live how you want to live.

It’s no wonder moral relativism has its critics. Not only does it throw the entire good vs. bad paradigm into the trash, but it also threatens the entire philosophical discourse on morality. All of a sudden, one has an escape route to the tough moral questions by saying that the questions are flawed and have no answers. It’s easy to see how this is attractive, as all of a sudden the tough questions are no longer tough at all – in fact, they are no longer worthy of asking. At the same time, a lack of answers leads to deeper and deeper questions that become more and more troubling: why the heck am I living in the first place?

And that question has always been ever-so-hard to answer. But now that one potential answer has been crossed out – the idea that humans live to be good people – there’s not so many left. You could say that one’s own purpose is to be good in their own standards, another escape hatch, but that leads to more and more questions: why should one have a moral standard in the first place?

Certainly, such an existential outlook wouldn’t be Kierkegaardian. If one resolves to follow  a moral outlook, then, the reasoning has to be something besides “being good because it’s good”. It would have to fall into, I think, a hedonistic or nihilistic attitude – the first being “be good because it feels good” and the second being “be good because human nature is a bull you can’t fight”. Both views are evidently seen as disgusting by all non-relativists or all non-mainstream relativists, and it’s not difficult to see why. It also presses the question on why such views should even be allowed in moral discussion, when neither makes an attempt for “true” morality.

And that’s the catch. The discussion boils down to if there is “true” morality. Is there any objective truth at all? Whether there is or not, relativists would insist the question is unnecessary. If you start with the premise that there are no morals, why bother to look for morals when it’s just a waste of time? Especially if your hedonistic self doesn’t want to bother, or if your nihilistic self hates asking questions. Which makes relativism all the more difficult to talk about – when taking that stance could lead to never questioning the stance again.

And suddenly religion isn’t the dogmatic one. Uh oh.

 

Part 2

Juggling the golden rule

“You should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you… Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you” — Ali ibn Ali Talib (4th caliph of Islam, son in law of the Prophet Muhammad)

Ali didn’t come up with this concept – it’s been around for thousands of years. The Prophet said it too, but I liked Ali’s version of the quote since it was a bit longer and more elaborate. I’ve always had a rather skeptical view of the golden rule, which I suspect many have but never speak out loud.

It does have a fair amount of disparage from intellectual celebrities. George Bernard Shaw, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, and Bertrand Russell aren’t fans of the novel concept. The argument they make is simple and rather convincing; it goes something like this:

“Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different” — Bernard Shaw (British playwright)

Alright, fair enough. What if I were a masochist? Clearly, the golden rule has its issues. Its fundamental premise, seemingly, is a rather naïve sort of kindness. It’s a selfish, indiscriminate, and degrading treatment of others. Kindness comes out of how you think others should be catered to, how you think one person should be treated versus another, and how you think morality should play it all. So much for humility.

“There’s only one rule that I know of, babies…you’ve got to be kind” — Kurt Vonnegut (American author)

The golden rule, arguably, relies on this arrogant idea that’s all about you. It requires you to judge others – to decide what’s best for them. That sounds familiar: I know what’s better for you better than you know yourself. Just looking at history, we know that works. Kindness doesn’t take into account the receiver; it’s all about the sender. The sender decides how to give off kindness and in what shape or form. The sender is the one who makes the game and the rules to that game. This is the sort of arrogance people try to avoid. It’s one danger to believe you’re at the center of the world, and a whole other story to believe you’re the benevolent center of the world. All of a sudden, no one’s opinion of themselves count – how dignifying.  You, your egocentric self, know them better than they know themselves. Sounds suspicious.

So let’s forget about this archaic law. Let’s deal with empathy, okay? Instead of treating others the way you would want to treat yourself, why not treat others the way they’d want to be treated? That would make the world mighty better. All of a sudden, the judging goes. A true call to empathy and compassion might save us all. Empathy leads to real understanding, not an artificial one. Empathy is taking your shoes off and going into someone else’s. It’s taking off the lens you view the world and putting on someone else’s. The golden rule, on the other hand, is never bothering to do just that, right?

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” — Atticus Finch (in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird)

I treat that with similar suspicion though. Can one really remove their bias and see it from another point of view, while using your own conscience and your own mind? Claiming you can doesn’t sound honest to me, and I’m tired of those ‘truly objective’ individuals that float around. When you take your skin off and put someone else’s on, what you’re really doing is putting someone else’s skin on top of yours and walking around. You’re just  seeing someone else’s view from your own viewpoint. You’re looking at a lens with another lens, pretending the first isn’t there at all.

Judging is inherent in the human condition, and there’s no use trying to get rid of it. The sender of kindness, pretending they can, is lying to themself just as they are lying to the receiver. Empathy, at the deepest and truest level, isn’t realistic. We need to stop pretending.

The golden rule, then, isn’t perfect. But it calls on people to be true to themselves. You can’t expect to know how others want to be treated. But you have a reference point – how you’d like to be treated. And we all want to be understood – so we’d treat the other with an attempt to understand. And though the egocentricity remains it’s fine. You are only being honest to the flawed human condition. It’s only a recognition that you cannot fully understand someone else, so you use the only frame of reference you have: your shoes, your lens, your skin. The beginning to understanding others, then, is understanding you can’t really understand at all. And Socrates says it best:

“I know nothing”

Cry Freedom!

I do not know much about South Africa, except that my most favorite friend is from there (you know who you are!). I talked to an older lady, white, once, in Paris at a café. She was born in Zambia but lived most of her life in South Africa. Her biggest concerns were the rising political tensions: threatening the democratic stability that has never lasted long in Africa. Some might say that there are exceptions, such as Ghana. My critique of the argument is that we said the same of Kenya seven years ago. But their safety bubble burst, too.

The history of modern South Africa, though, has little comparison with the rest of Sub Sahara, making its case quite different. I hope I need not explain it, but the country has been dominated by the minority white population up until the last twenty years. Before that, the 9% Afrikaner minority, descendants of European colonists, owned all the wealth, political power, and social control. The forced segregation and discrimination is known as apartheid, the word referring uniquely to South Africa. This ended entirely in 1994, with the election of Nelson Mandela as the first black president of the nation in the first free elections. Things are still pretty nasty there from what I hear, but I could be hearing wrong.

That is a horrible summary of South African racial relations, but this is a movie review, and you should know the rest anyway.

One thing that makes this movie so profound is that it was released in 1987, years before the end of apartheid. The protagonist of the movie is a proud “liberal” white newspaper editor. He has a family and a number of kids. He isn’t all that racist, and his family is pretty liberal for the time and place too. He sooner or later meets a man named Steve Biko, an anti-apartheid activist that really did exist. Being the liberal intellectual he was, Donald Woods was against racism on any color of skin. He wanted to fix the apartheid problem and bring equality to everyone, but such a transition had to happen “smoothly”. An idealist with no real experience of his country, he has never really seen the treatment of blacks outside of the place he works, and he’s never seen or experienced the conditions the majority of them live in. Living in his rich white liberal Afrikaner shell, he assumed that the blacks were just as racist, just as supremacist, and even more violent.

He starts to grow out of his shell; I’ll spare you the details. Biko shows him the townships most blacks live in, and the horrid conditions of that lifestyle. Woods becomes more and more comfortable with Biko, as he realizes he’s not all that bad and not all that violent as most Afrikaners assume he is. Apparently, hardly any of the blacks in South Africa are violent or racist. They want “to build a South Africa worth living in – a South Africa for equals, black or white, a South Africa as beautiful as this land is, as beautiful as we are”, to quote Biko.

Things go on, the movie progresses. Without telling you what happens, Donald Woods takes on an important role in the anti-Apartheid movement. The government hates him, and he hates them too. He has a number of friends that are willing to help his cause, but there also some who are taking advantage of the relationship to maintain white power and privilege. His family, though, is entirely supportive. Woods eventually decides to write a book about a certain something that happens, and he resolves to escape the country to do so (South Africa won’t have it).

The movie is great and sheds a lot of the problems of the nation. It had some fantastic quotes, which I’ll share at the bottom. I enjoyed Donald Woods’ transformation from Afrikaner liberal to a real, good ‘ol western liberal. Biko was interesting, and so were his many black associates and friends. The movie was basically fantastic.

I have a few withdrawals, though. The movie quite  honestly gave a picture that almost all of the blacks, especially all of Biko’s friends, were fun loving guys that just wanted some good for everybody. They didn’t judge no white man nowhere, and they always seemed happy. I don’t think I need to check the facts, that simply can’t be realistic. I am certain there’s more to it: certain that there was a good number of black people that hated the Afrikaner just as much as vice versa. If not more, I daresay.

Judge: Why do you people call yourselves black? You look more brown than black.

Steve Biko: Why do you call yourselves white? You look more pink than white.

 

State Prosecutor: But your own words demand for DIRECT CONFRONTATION!

Steve Biko: That’s right, we demand confrontation.

State Prosecutor: Isn’t that a demand for violence?

Steve Biko: Well, you and I are now in confrontation, but I see no violence.

Miscellaneous quotes from Biko in the movie. For some reason, he’s the only person who has good quotes:

What we’ve got to decide is the best way to do that. And as angry as we have the right to be, let us remember that we are in the struggle to kill the idea that one kind of man is superior to another kind of man.

You can beat or jail me or even kill me, but I am not going to be what you want me to be!

I just expect to be treated like you expect to be treated. Come on, what are you so afraid of? Once you try you see there’s nothing to fear. We’re just as weak and human as you are.

My favorite:

My lord, blacks are not unaware of the hardships they endure or what the government is doing to them. we want them to stop accepting these hardships – to confront them. People must not just give in to the hardship of life, they must find a way, even in these environments, to – to develop hope – hope for themselves, hope for this country. Now I think that is what black consciousness is all about. Not without any reference to the white man. To try to build up a sense of our own humanity – our legitimate place in the world.

Altruism…is it real?

Concerning altruism, there are many perspectives on whether or not we can be purely altruistic. There are many stances we could take, and many lenses we could look through. Let’s see what they are, what they signify, and why they are misleading.

An evolutionary lens, for example, would suggest that our genes encourage altruism so that we get things in return, so that we reproduce. In other words, organisms can be, while the roots of it, in our genes, are selfish. That is the view of Dr. Richard Dawkins, hence the book title The Selfish Gene. Dawkin’s argument is fairly satisfying in the scientific community.

We could also take a more philosophical lens, in that to treat others selflessly we’d have to be happy doing it, right? Should someone want to save another person’s life, and attempts to do so, they satisfied their desire, thus being selfish in the end.  This at first may seem to be irrefutable, it did to me at least for a number of years. But there are counter arguments: someone may not think about the fact that they want to be altruistic. After all, impulsiveness is a given in the human condition. However, if we are altruistic impulsively, would that still be considered altruism? That is another question that is debated.

What we know from egoism is that we are only altruistic to get altruism back. This is similar to the evolutionary view, except on the scope of organisms along with individual genes. This, perhaps, is too pessimistic. Certainly, could holding the door open for a stranger be an act of kindness done solely in the hopes that one day the stranger will see you, and will open the door for you? It simply doesn’t make sense. Additionally, such a thinking process wouldn’t be all that logical, considering someone who thought this way would probably have to be. Statistically, not everyone could possibly have a net “gain” in altruism, there would always be winners and losers, if you will. And certainly, the nice people don’t always win.

Perhaps a more psychological approach, one less dealing with evolution. Studies, such as one I found in The Atlantic Monthly, show that newborns begin life with some sense of selflessness. It is interesting to support arguments like these with evidence from the psychology of newborns, I’ll write soon on the lack of self awareness in babies and it’s significance in the study of artificial intelligence. The fact that newborns are surprised by the lack of sharing in a movie, and that most do willingly share is astonishing, and it does support half of the evolutionary perspective.

I think that much of the debate comes from the lack of a proper definition of altruism. Philosophers, psychologists, and economists alike (yes, economists play a role) only spend time on studying how altruism works, without actually defining the word. Perhaps we can see it’s dictionary definition, and then dissect it:

Merriam Webster defines altruism as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.”

Unselfish is defined as: “having or showing more concern for other people than for yourself.”

Concern, in the context, means: “a feeling of being interested in and caring about a person or thing.”

In other words, altruism is being more interested and devoted to the welfare of others than to yourself. But that still isn’t very clear, and that’s where philosophers, psychologists, and economists need to step up. Should we take the philosophical view that altruism is only impulsive, we must decide if it can still be altruistic. After all, “it’s possible that babies are more likely to be altruistic than older people, because they think less about it” (from The Atlantic Monthly article). However, this could be like saying I did a good deed even though I didn’t know it was a good deed.

Should we take the egoist perspective, as economists unfortunately do, we must assume that humans act “altruistically” out of self interest. Although the traditional arguments of egoism don’t stand, one might say that people act for the welfare of others solely to satisfy some sort of “sense duty” they have,  according to this literary magazine. Alternatively, one might also argue people act benevolently to satisfy some sort of deity or obey inherent natural laws (heaven or hell, karma, etc). That is another possibility. But once again, could one still be altruistic while maintaining a shed of selfishness, as long as that selfishness is the very thing leading to the altruism?  And if we all act out of this inherent self-interest, maybe there is no such thing as self-interest at all.

These are serious issues with debating altruism, and we can’t move forward in this debate until we agree on the questions I posed. Otherwise, we’re simply beating around the bush and arguing over different things without realizing it.

Westboro Baptist, Gay Marriage, and Anti-Discrimination Laws

In New Mexico, United States, a right wing Christian photographer refused to offer his photographing services to a gay marriage on the grounds that he disagreed with such a marriage. The same sex couple, angry, filed a lawsuit against Elane Photography. The New Mexican Supreme Court ruled in the couple’s favor: that by refusing services, Elane Photography discriminated against homosexuals.

The case came to my attention when I read an article on The Huntington Post where the author offers a hypothetical alternative: what if the Westboro Baptist Church asked Elane Photography to photograph their protest at a funeral? Would Elane Photography be breaking the law if they said no on the grounds that “we are not entitled to use our beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against other people”? It would seem so, considering the ruling.

Let us forget the law, for a second. It appears quite clear that legally, under US law, Elane Photography would be discriminating if they refused to photograph a same sex marriage just as if they refused to photograph a protest at a funeral. But morally, does that make sense?

That is a tough question. On one hand, the government really is in this instance forcing a business to not discriminate. In other words, it is imposing its morals upon the business, and since corporations are people, who knows what other morals we can be forced to believe. We are allowed our own beliefs as long as we don’t harm anyone else. Is it harmful to decline business to someone? You are not taking away business, you simply aren’t providing it in the first place. What makes this situation so different from an all-boys school? Aren’t they discriminating against girls by not allowing them in the school? It would seem so. Another dilemma: suppose a Republican consultant firm was asked by a Democratic candidate to manage his election. Would the firm be discriminating if they refused business because of his political beliefs? It would sound so. Certainly, American Law has provisions to this, but we are speaking on moral grounds.

On the other hand, in the 1960s when segregation was made “illegal”, had there not been anti-discrimination laws, corporations could refuse black workers for no more reason then the fact they are black. What could the government do to stop this, besides enforce morals to a company that is harming no one? It would be like being put in timeout me refusing to share candy I earned for myself because I don’t like the other children there. That doesn’t sound right, especially if I was in a school building. Stealing candy is different, and I don’t quite see the difference with the corporation analogy. Then again, without anti-discrimination laws, would racism still be as bad as it was back then? I find it highly immoral for a corporation to refuse work from a certain ethnicity, and had they been able to do so, our country would be so much worse…but we have to be consistent, somehow.
So on moral grounds, perhaps we could say that Elane Photography should have the autonomous right to choose who they wish to photograph without government enforced morals. But if we set that as a precedent, we’d be in a country a hundredfold less united. Perhaps there is a middle ground for practicality: discrimination against people for their beliefs could be considered immoral, such as a Methodist hospital that suddenly chooses to refuse atheists.But alternatively, it is alright to discriminate against people for their actions. In other words, a convention center cannot refuse African American workers, but they can refuse NAACP conventions. If we chose this path, it would mean that Elane Photography could refuse to film a homosexual marriage, but not a homosexual. The latter is discriminating a person for something uncontrollable, the former is discriminating an institution you simply disagree with.

Secular Humanism: A Eurocentric Ideology (Response to a Critic)

This man is a genius. Almost as smart as me. Almost.

Fighting for the Fight or Fighting for what’s Right

There is an inexplicable paradox in much of our daily lives when it comes to arguments – that we usually argue for the sole reason of arguing. I see this all too often, and usually these sorts of arguments only lead to everyone getting pissed off and no one getting satisfied. It defeats the whole purpose of actual intellectual discourse. There is no pursuit of truth, no mutual desire for getting thing’s decided. When we bicker like this, all we are doing is trying to entertain ourselves. It rarely works.

What’s even worse about this sort of arguing is that very quickly it stops to be about actual logic. It slowly becomes about who can debase the other person through red herrings or personal attacks, or who has the better rhetoric and louder voice. There’s no honest search for an answer in that. I could only hope that people would get more sense: argue not for the sake of arguing but for the sake of getting the right answer…even if it isn’t yours. Be willing to confront the fact that you may be wrong, and try to remind the other person to do the same. Rhetoric with no content isn’t the way to go.

This happens to me all the time, and I have a feeling it happens to all of us. Which is why I usually try to ask myself why I am arguing this point or the other. What’s the intention that I set out to discuss it? Usually the intention is to have some fun ridiculing the other or proving I’m right, and that’s a problem. This happens on the internet just as much as with talking, and I’m afraid we do it without even realizing it. So let’s fix that. Just ask yourselves what your purpose is in the discussion, and if it’s not a good purpose, make it so or quit the discussing. Fight for what’s right, not for the fight.

Why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian

Why Bertrand Russell is not a Christian is a 25 page rage against Bertrand Russell’s religious views written by Reverend Ralph Allen Smith. It is in response to a brilliant lecture by Bertrand Russell titled Why I am not a Christian; I have written a review on that already. This essay serves to criticize Russell’s reasoning against Jesus and his reasoning for a secular worldview. It spends little time arguing for the Existence of God, although the author seems to imply he could argue that too if he wanted.

Reverend Smith begins by explaining that the existence of God is an unnecessary component of the Christian faith. This is in Catholic doctrine as well as in many Protestant faiths directly: that God does not need to be rationally deductible, only provable by means of Christianity alone. Smith, after explaining this, quickly and rashly states that Russell didn’t spend enough time thoroughly explaining why the rationale for God isn’t all too rationale. For some reason he doesn’t say how.

The first section, the smaller one, is absolute bogus and completely avoids answering any questions, but I love the second larger section. This one deals with why Russell’s worldview is insufficient (and thus Christianity, at the very least, is better), and why Russell’s tirade against Christianity is flat out stupid. He’s right about that.

Russell insists that Jesus was immoral on the grounds that anyone who believes in Hell is immoral. In other words, whether or not Hell is immoral by itself, if you tell people it exists you are immoral, even if you earnestly beleive it. For rational people like you and I, that’s crazy talk. I was astonished he would say something like that – and I read and re read his essay a number of times to make sure that was what he was earnestly saying. It was. Perhaps he isn’t so logical of a philosopher.

It gets worse though, and more controversial. Russell’s worldview, in the mind of the author and I, is by far the most irrational. It is a worldview completely absent of meaning and coherency, devoid of purpose and order. It is a worldview of nothing but chaos and randomness, but yet, there is a savior: morality! The cherished secular worldview of Bertrand Russell involves denying any purpose of life while simultaneously demanding altruism in life. It requires you to stand for open mindedness and rationality while simultaneously succumb to your altruistic evolutioned brain. There is no purpose of your existence, but you have to be a good person anyway. This is coming from Russell, a man who has cheated on several wives and dozens of women. This is coming from Russell, an icon of logic and pure thinking. This is coming from the idol of many atheists and secularists: and yet he was no more than an illogical fool when it comes to the subject of ethics and religion. This is hypocrisy and doublethink!

To conclude, this essay is A MUST READ for anyone who reads Russell’s lecture. I recommend for anyone. Now as I am not Christian, I find his argument that all Atheists know Christianity is true in their hearts but deny it anyways quite dubious, and as a Muslim I refuse to accept that God does not have to be rationally deductible for religion to be true, but his disparage against Russell still holds. His disparage against the secular worldview is short, blunt, and brilliant. I can only hope that truth and free thought can one day emerge within all of us.