Tears of Tyrants: letter to a postmodern world

Let us teach our people that there is no God.

Let us teach our people that they were not made with intention or purpose.

Let us teach our people that their actions will not ultimately be judged.

*                      *                       *

Let us teach our people that there is no such thing as truth; that there is no right way.

Let us teach our people that they should believe any doctrine, except for the doctrine of objectivity, so long as it makes them happy.

Let us teach our people to let the self reign supreme.

Let us be our own dictators over truth.

*                      *                       *

Let us then be shocked and disgusted when individuals refuse to behave according to our moral principles.

And let us panic as we find ourselves powerless to convince them into obedience.

Let us shout out words of which we have stripped all meaning and power.

Let us compose arguments with no atmosphere through which to transmit them.

Let chaos silently sweep the nations as we observe at a helpless distance, locked inside our vacuous void, having successfully removed the possibility of human connection.

*                      *                        *

Let, then, our blood boil with anger as we strike down our enemy.

Let us lock him up for his crimes against us,

And weep tears of tyrants.

Part of growing up is becoming loyal to Truth and Goodness themselves, rather than to those things we have always thought embodied them.

J.S. Mill, an image of husbandly love.

TO the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings – the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward – I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs to her as much as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world on half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

– J.S. Mill dedicating his work, On Liberty, to his deceased wife.

C.S. Lewis on love.

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung out and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness.

But in that casket – safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation.

The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.”

– From The Four Loves Ch.6. ‘Charity’.

friendlyatheist:

The foundation of morality, reason.

—————————————————————————————————

Dawkins makes a staggering number of mistakes in this argument.

First, he doesn’t actually answer the question that he’s asked. He is asked about how it is that an atheist would establish a framework within which to decide between right and wrong without believing in any sort of divine moral law giver who can bring rational basis to concepts of right and wrong.

Instead of answering that, Dawkins simply critiqued the specific moral lawS that certain religions have apparently suggested, and said that our modern ones are superior. But he has failed to give any rational account of what makes something right or wrong. By saying that modern morality is superior to ancient morality, he presupposed the very thing he was asked to prove – that there is such a thing as right and wrong. He was asked a metaethics question, and provided a normative ethics answer. It wins applause. But that’s it.

The other main one is that he doesn’t seem to understand what absolute morality really means. He says that because the specific religious moral laws are unsatisfactory, he doesn’t want absolute morality. He seems to think that absolute morality means a moral law that you are not allowed to question and reason about. And if that was what was meant by ‘absolute morality’, I think I wouldn’t want it either. But that is not what absolute morality means – not when philosophers talk about it, and I highly doubt it was what the questioner meant by it.

Absolute morality simply means that there is an absolute truth (not relative truth) as to whether something is right or wrong. It means that you can reason and debate about it as much as you want, but in the end there IS a truth about whether or not it is wrong to rape someone; that the truth about it is not relative to people’s opinions. It is this type of moral reality that he was asked to give an atheist’s rational account for. Instead he presumed this type of morality exists in order to blast religious people.

I find it strange that he would do this considering that I’m pretty sure, on other occasions, he has admitted that there is no rational basis for morality under atheism.

This is some pretty dodgy rhetoric on Dawkins’ party I must say.