All posts by Richard

Lies, damned lies, and ‘religion’

To lie is to bear false witness. It is to make an untruthful statement intended to deceive.

Jesus says, “Do not bear false witness.” (KJV) Lying is wrong. But why? Jesus explains,

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! (NIV)

Centuries later, the philosopher Immanuel Kant came up with a secular account of why it is wrong to lie which, it seems, Jesus had prefigured. In his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy, Kant went so far as to claim that it would be wrong to lie to a would-be murderer even to save an innocent life.

Truthfulness in statements that one cannot avoid is a human being’s duty to everyone, however great the disadvantage to him or to another that may result from it… [I]f I falsify… I… do wrong in the most essential part of duty in general by such falsification… that is, I bring it about, as far as I can, that statements (declarations) in general are not believed, and so too that all rights which are based on contracts come to nothing and lose their force; and this is a wrong inflicted upon humanity generally… For [a lie] always harms another, even if not another individual, nevertheless humanity generally, inasmuch as it makes the source of right unusable.

Kant based his moral philosophy on a maxim he called the Categorical Imperative.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

You cannot will that the maxim, “Bear false witness,” become a universal law! If we all lied, all the time, then soon no one would believe a word that anyone said. After a while, no one would even hear what anyone said.

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

Talk would be ignored, like a background noise tuned out. Ultimately, we’d be struck dumb. No one would bother to say anything at all, even the truth, since no one would believe him.

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

To lie is not merely to commit a crime against he to whom the lie is told. It is to commit a crime against language itself. St. Augustine said

But every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is evident that speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive one another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. To use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for its appointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there is any lie that is not a sin, because it is sometimes possible, by telling a lie, to do service to another.

Which brings me to my final point. Lying is an abuse of language. But it’s not the only one. The Biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” has its corollary in M. Hare’s maxim, “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.” Words have meanings. To say what you mean, you must find the words that mean what you mean to say, and say them. Mean what you say, and say what you mean. Surreptitious redefinition is a species of pernicious redefinition. It, too, is an abuse of language.

Words and phrases have meanings. For example, Christianity is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … and a religion. Secular humanism is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … but not a religion. The word ‘religion’ is used to distinguish between creeds whose central doctrines include the reality of a god or gods, and those whose central doctrines do not, or which are explicitly atheistic.

Lie and, ultimately, language ceases to function. Use the term ‘religion’ to encompass secular creeds, customs and ideologies and, ultimately, ‘religion’ ceases to function. Pernicious redefinition is tantamount to lying. Dare I say it’s also akin to theft?! I used to be a “liberal”, until today’s liberals took the term ‘liberal’ unto themselves. Now I’m a libertarian. But for how much longer? How much time do I have before I morph into a traitorous idiot?

Ayn Rand was a libertarian and atheism is not a religion.

Ecclesiastes 9:7-10

Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (NIV)

Is Objectivism a religion?

According to Wikipedia, a religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

Objectivism is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Objectivism has narratives (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), symbols (the dollar sign, the New York skyline), traditions (psycho-epistemology, Concepts in a Hat) and sacred histories (the blemish-free life of Ayn Rand) that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. Objectivists try to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle (smoking cigarettes, listening to Rachmaninoff) from Rand’s ideas about the cosmos (“the Metaphysical”) and human nature (“the Man-Made”).

Is Objectivism a religion? According to (some) Wikipedia authors, the answer is yes.

Symbol of the Objectivist movement

But wait!

Surely, that can’t be right. Recently, thousands of copies of the DVD of Atlas Shrugged were recalled because the cover inadvertently described the story as one of “courage and self-sacrifice”. Shouldn’t Wikipedia’s definition of religion likewise be recalled? After all, Objectivists are implacably opposed to religion, or “mysticism,” as they like to call it.

Wikipedia’s definition of religion is too broad. Loosely speaking, yes, Objectivism is a religion. But loose talk can cost lives. Wikipedia’s definition omits mention of belief in a supernatural entity or entities, worthy of worship. Belief in a god or gods is not incidental to religion. It is essential to it. But Objectivism is atheistic. So, properly speaking, no, Objectivism is not a religion. Objectivism is a philosophical system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … but not a religion.

Properly speaking, Objectivism is not a religion … the term ‘religion’ can properly be applied only to belief systems which include a belief in a god or gods.

God’s unwitting minion?

Of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse, I rate Christopher Hitchens highly. (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, not so much.)

One of Hitchens’s last public appearances was at the Texas Freethought Convention where he was presented with the Freethinker of the Year Award by Richard Dawkins.

When I watched this, I was struck by a few things Christopher Hitchens had to say.

If Jesus wasn’t the son of God, he was a hideous, wicked imposter whose words were vain and empty and intended to deceive.

Isn’t that the main premise in C. S. Lewis’s well known argument (Lewis’s Trilemma) for the divinity of Jesus?

In conversation with a young freethinker whose copy of his book Hitchens autographs, he pays respect to Jesus and reminds his young fan to heed Christianity’s central message.

This is getting worse and worse. She’s floored me twice now. This is like the rabbis confronting Jesus outside the temple, you know …

Lots of love, take it easy. Remember the love bit, also.

RIP Christopher Hitchens.

A man of the sheeple

LAWRENCE SMITH/Fairfax NZ

Andrew Little, David Cunliffe, Shane Jones … all have been touted as future leaders of New Zealand’s Labour Party. But Helen Clark’s successor (Goff was just fillin’) is relative newcomer David Shearer.

Helen Clark resigned from Parliament in 2009 to take up a post with the United Nations. A by-election was held in the Mount Albert electorate. David Shearer quit his United Nations post to contest and win the Mount Albert by-election and became the new Member of Parliament for Mount Albert. It’s early days, but I’m picking that Shearer will succeed Clark as New Zealand’s next Labour Prime Minister, too, in three years’ time.

A question for the Labour caucus: Is Shearer the Best of You or is he The Pretender?