Timothy the Questioner - or, Let the Punishment Not Fit the Crime

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Timothy. Timothy had lived all alone in a house since birth; the people of the village all helped to take care of him. Although Timothy had no parents, he had a happy enough life, as the villagers fed him and gave him clothes and toys.

When Timothy began to grow up, the villagers began to tell him stories about Albert, the architect who built his house. Timothy enjoyed the tales, and was glad to know about Albert, who had provided him the roof over his head.

But as Timothy got older, he began to ask questions: If Albert had built the house, where was he now? Timothy wanted to thank him. Although his house was built of granite, the stories said that Albert had shaped the house from raw clay; Timothy wanted to know how the clay was turned to granite. And sometimes, there were differences in the stories about Albert; why is that, asked Timothy?

The villagers grew tired of Timothy's questions. They told him that they knew Albert existed because the house was there, and that the story about how it was built was a parable, not to be taken literally - but no, the man across the street said that it WAS to be taken literally, so...

Timothy grew more and more confused. In the end, the villagers finally told him that if he did not simply accept Albert's gifts, the boy would have to be punished for eternity. When Timothy asked why this was the case, the villagers grew angry and told him that Albert loved him, had built the house for him, and Timothy should stop asking questions.

After a few more days of questions, the villagers awoke one morning to a horrible screaming. They walked outside their homes to find Timothy's stone dwelling blazing, with Timothy trapped inside, burning alive. No matter what they tried, the flames could not be put out, and desite the horrendous temperature, Timothy continued to scream, and did not die. Outside of the house, pinned to the fence, was a piece of paper: Believe or burn - Love, Albert.

The villagers learned to live with the screaming and the constant smell of burning, melting stone. And every day they commented to themselves how lucky they were to be loved by Albert, the great architect.

The moral of the story: Eternal, fiery torment is an appropriate punishment for the damnable crime of asking questions in an uncertain situation.

My thought for the day:

When a child talks to an invisible friend, we consider it cute, and encourage the child's creativity.

When that child grows up and continues to talk to an invisible friend, we are concerned about schizophrenia, and medicate the man the child became.

When a lot of people talk to the same invisible friend, society calls it religion, and yells at atheists for pointing out that there's really no difference between this example and the prior one.

Saddle up for the (not ass-)friendly skies!

Finally - a non-religious blog!

Italian firm Aviointeriors has introduced a new saddle-style airline seat. The seat is meant to allow airlines to reduce leg space (read: comfort) of passengers from an overly-generous 30 inches to the much more economical 23 inches - all while placing the passenger on a smaller, saddle-shaped seat that fits comfortably up the ass.

I'm already uncomfortable enough in coach on most airlines. If I had my choice of either flying on a plane equipped with these butt plugs, or being forced to watch a Jersey Shore marathon while a glandularly-overactive skunk sat on my face, I'd choose the latter.

I think my favorite part of the article is this:

"For flights anywhere from one to possibly even up to three hours ... this would be comfortable seating," Dominique Menoud, Aviointeriors director general, told USAToday. "The seat ... is like a saddle. Cowboys ride eight hours on their horses during the day and still feel comfortable in the saddle."

No, Mister Menoud. Cowboys are not comfortable in the saddle eight hours a day. They simply lose all feeling in their lower extremities. Most riding schools intentionally keep a student's first several lessons down to thirty minutes, because otherwise, the pain from more extended rides would cause the student to quit.

Of course, this is all in the sake of money. While we're at it, why not cut out those pesky bathrooms on the plane? Simply catheterize the passengers before they board; 'honey bags' stowed beneath the seat would take up a lot less space. Or, even better - just induce hypothermia and coma in the passenger! That way you can just stack 'em up like logs.

Thankfully, the article notes that this is not approved by the FAA - yet. But give it time.

Is atheism a religion? Is bald a hair color?

So, many times I come across theists (specifically Christians) who refer to atheism as a 'religion'. I don't know why they do this, personally; perhaps it's a drastic attempt to reassure themselves that a human cannot possibly lead a fulfilling, moral life without a religion to follow, but regardless of the reason, the topic comes up regularly.

The short, sarcastic answer to this question is, "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." I've also seen, "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

Barbed wit aside, let's actually take a look at a detailed definition of 'religion' (from Wikipedia):

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

All right, that seems pretty clear to me. I can sit down and show how Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth fulfill that definition.

Now let's look at atheism, and see how it stacks up.

"...a set of beliefs concering the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..."

Atheism is a single belief (or, arguably, a lack of belief) in a single concept - that of the existence of gods. If a religion is a "set of beliefs" (and I've yet to come across a single religion that had only one tenet), then atheism is disqualified, as it only specifies one philosophy. Additionally, that concept does not speak toward the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe, so that's strike two.

"...especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies..."

Supernatural agency = gods. Since atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of such beings, that's strike three. If this were baseball, the "atheism is a religion" team would already have struck out, but let's continue.

"...usually involving devotional and ritual observances..."

While blogging, answering questions on Yahoo! answers, and hanging out at Starbucks might be common amongst atheists, I would not term them either devotional or ritualistic - nor are they universal.

"...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs..."

When atheism itself is a simple statement of lack of belief, how could it be considered to offer any sort of moral code? Atheists propose no unified moral code. It offers no guidance in itself. It's really a simple statement - along the lines of saying, "Without evidence of gods, why believe in them?"

So is atheism a religion? Sure doesn't look like it to me. In this ballgame, that concept has struck out.

Food diary - Monday Aug 30, 2010

Off to a somewhat poor start to the day. Oh well.

Breakfast: Ham-and-cheese filled croissant, mixed fruit cup (Paradise Bakery)
Lunch: Sausage and peppers with penne pasta (F&E)
Snack: Everything bagel, plain

Objective morality versus subjective morality

One of the common topics that comes up in discussion on Yahoo! Answers is the concept of morality - roughly, right and wrong. This morality generally comes in two flavors: Objective and Subjective.

Objective morality is the moral judgment of an action by an external, impartial third party. In other words, objective morality requires someone completely outside and unaffected by a situation to render judgment of the situation.

Subjective morality is the moral judgment of an action by a party who may not be external or impartial. This would include judgment of actions by an individual, based on their personal beliefs, and societal mores and laws.

As an atheist, I must assume that all morality is subjective. In roughly 4.55 billion years, no religious group has been able to present any credible evidence for the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient deity, and so the concept of an objective morality is simply hypothetical; any human will find that their judgment of the situation is subject to their own personal beliefs, and that they are not wholly impartial to the situation.

Since morality is subjective - influenced by a number of factors, including region of birth, religious beliefs, environmental factors such as upbringing and social circles - then morality cannot be universal.

Or can it?

My personal moral code includes a simple tenet that exists in a number of major philosophies or religions. Witch's law simply states, "Do no harm." Confucianism expressed the concept of 'shu', or reciprocity: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Christianity later reversed this rule and included it in the Bible, as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

None of these completely express my personal, core moral belief, however; they are too simplified, and assume that all people live by the same morality (and they don't). To state it simply:

The only immoral act is that which unjustly imposes upon the rights of another person (sentient being) to take the action of their choosing.

Oliver Wendell Holmes stated this more poetically: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

What exactly does all that mean? At first glance, it may sound like that I'm simply saying, "'Do as thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law," but that is not completely true. Note that I clarify that an action may not unjustly impose on the rights of the second person. In other words, as long as the action you want to take does not impede me in taking the actions of my choosing (and, vice versa, my actions don't impede yours), then the actions are moral.

There can be some gray areas to this, of course. For example, a child may want to stay up very late on a school night, while the parent may force the child to go to bed. While the parent has imposed upon the child's right to act, it is not unjust for a number of reasons, the first and foremost being that education is incredibly important to the child's well-being (even though the child may not see it at the time).

As another example: Someone breaks into my house and attempts to kill me to take my belongings. In that instance, I consider it moral to defend myself with force, up to and including killing my attacker. His desired action (killing me) would obviously impose upon my right to take my desired actions (duh!), and so in that instance reacting in kind is not immoral, because it is done in defense of my ultimate right to moral action.

I acknowledge that this moral code, in fact, includes its own quandary, as in many cases it requires its practitioner to judge the morality of the action of others - but as I said above, I consider all morality to be subjective, and so this is an inevitability I accept.

Overall, though, I consider it a very rational code to follow - and numerous religions and other schools of philosophy seem to agree, at least in part. As I mentioned in a prior blog, this concept was stated by Aristotle as a key basis of law - reason, free from passion. When determining whether an action is moral or immoral, one must simply take a look at the action and judge whether the consequences unjustly impose on the rights of other people - and "unjustly", in this case, means that there must be some sort of direct harm caused to those others by the act.

Followed universally, I think that this concept would lead to an ultimately perfect society. However, I'm not optimistic (or deluded) enough to believe that, as a species, we're anywhere near ready to achieve this sort of clear thought.

Food diary - Fri Aug 27 2010

As my doctor just told me that I have very high cholesterol, I'm going to attempt to keep a food diary here through the week (at least for breakfast and lunch).

Breakfast: Turkey sausage and egg white flatbread (Dunk'n Donuts) with a 16-ounce milk
Lunch: Chicken with yogurt sauce and couscous (Fresh and Easy), 1 piece garlic naan with hummus
Snack: Pineapple chunks, peach yogurt