And Nothing Heard My Scream

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The fact that we all want it to be stable.

Sheesh.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Except you did it in about 2.9 paragraphs less than it took me. Hrmph.

 

[Hellbound]

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Except you did it in about 2.9 paragraphs less than it took me. Hrmph.

Don't feel bad. Those 5700 posts he's got? About 5000 of them come form his diving directly into ground-zero of several woo claims.

You can't compete with that kind of experience He's our own W-O-D team (Woo Ordinance Disposal).

 

[tmackean]

The concept of a soul is a religious belief, and is inseparable from faith.

I don't belong to any religious faith, and have no evidence that I possess a soul. I strongly suspect I'm a biological machine, one of many billions on this planet.

Despite this, I have no wish to harm or persecute anyone else for my personal gain, monetary or otherwise. I feel compelled to interact with other people in a well-behaved way, as I can visualise how little I would like it if they were nasty to me. I believe that my attitudes toward other people have been formed through a combination of nature (behavioural predispositions in my genes) and nurture (the ingrained lessons of childhood and the examples set by my parents).

As I don't believe in God, or souls, or heaven, my personal morality differs from that of the believer. My views on the morality of abortion or Euthanasia would most likely be different, for instance, if I believed in souls.

However, people WITH faith have openly expressed to me that without their religion they imagine that they would do BAD THINGS. A close female friend with a history of depressive illness has also told me that without her belief in an afterlife, she would have killed herself many times. Only the knowledge that there is a better place for her to go to gives her the strength to carry on in this one.

So, I've concluded that although many people do not require a religious worldview to be good people, or to function effectively, some do. I've read that many sociologists consider faith to be an evolutionary response to anarchy - a collection of genes that when switched to the ON position (sorry if I'm getting too technical, here!) make an individual strongly suggestible to the concept of divinity. Religious followers will often form a strong social cohesion, and strong communities are more likely to survive and grow than anarchic ones. Ironic that faith denies evolution, when evolution may well be the inevitable creator of faith.

In a world, though, where belief motivates people to carry out violent and senseless (from a secular perspective) acts of terror, I'm no longer so sure that society gets a net gain from religion - or whether it's become a serious impediment to social and moral momentum.

 

[I less than three logic]

"I have long suspected as much," I said. "Hmm. If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."

[snip]

"People will soon finally realize what that means," I said. "Killing is smart. A rational thing to do to get what you want."

[snip]

Stone," I said. "I have no immortal soul, so the only rational thing I can be is a sociopath."
[snip]

"If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath," I whispered to the empty, empty air. "How strange that this is so difficult to see."

If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath.

[snip]

Without an immortal soul, how what Michael does affects other people is of no rational concern to him.

[snip]

If Michael is certain no human will find out at all, or until AFTER he is dead----a situation I was careful to make certain was clear---it is entirely rational to do WHATEVER he wants to get whatever it is he wants, up to and including killing, as many people as necessary. There will be NO physical repercussions to him, none.

[snip]

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Tormac]

I may be missing something here Jeff Corken, but I don’t understand why it follows that having a soul means that there are negative consequence for all hurtful actions.

Many religious beliefs allow for people to escape the consequences of their actions, assuming that they follow the prescribed dogma of their faith.

According to many Christian faiths, all it takes to escape the consequences of one’s actions here on earth is to accept that Jesus died for your sins. The vilest of people can go to heaven, if they accept Jesus as their personal savior. They can even backslide in a moment of weakness, and still commit crimes, and be forgiven.

Sociopathic behavior seems to have been common in medieval Europe for example, during a time when the Catholic Church had the legal power to enforce religious conformity, among those conformities the belief in a soul. All it takes is a religious doctrine that prescribes that it is ok with God if you torture and murder heathens (be they Jews, Moslems, Pagans, or heretics of other Christian faiths) and you have a society that rewards sociopathic behavior, while clinging to the notion of an immortal soul. (And of course the notion of a “unbeliever” that is not protected by the social norms of a society seems common in most religious, not to sound like I’m just picking on Christianity or the Catholic Church in particular.)

It does not follow logically JC that the belief in a soul discourages sociopathic behavior, and the lack of belief in a soul makes sociopathic behavior logical. Through out history, religious dogma that revolves around the belief in a soul, and reward in the afterlife for following prescribed dogma, seems to have frequently encouraged sociopathic behavior.

 

[Tormac]

. . .

But having an immortal soul changes this equation radically.

Let me make this as clear as I can. Suppose you have five dollars, somebody shoots you in the back under circumstances under which he knows he will never be caught, and takes your five dollars.

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

But suppose you DO have an immortal soul, an existence that cannot be terminated by any means. Both of you do.

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

. . .

I guess this is the point where I loose you JC.

I've never heard of an after life that sounded like the Wild West, where it was up to individuals to punish those who had wronged them in the "real" world.

Most religions that I'm familiar with give the right of eternal punishment to supernatural beings, or supernatural laws, and do not prescribe that in the after life, individuals have the right to persecute those who wronged them. Are you really proposing that I keep a list of everyone who wronged me in this life, so that I can get even with them in the next world?

I may not understand the concept of the after life that you are proposing, but I can't imagine a more ferocious hell than one where everyone is eternally trying to get even with everyone else for every crime committed here on earth.

 

[slingblade]

And not all sociopaths commit murder or crime for that matter, what happens to a sociopath that believes in God?

I marry him, he beats hell out of me with a Bible, cheats on me, drinks and drugs and lies, and then I divorce him 13 years later.

He goes on to buy himself a title on the internet, becomes pastor of a church, gets incredibly rich, and never once apologizes to me for his brutality, because God has forgiven him and it's all in the past, now.

No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

 

[Meffy]

I've never heard of an after life that sounded like the Wild West, where it was up to individuals to punish those who had wronged them in the "real" world.

The Pearly Gates slammed open like a pair o' saloon doors. I moseyed on in, chewin' on a toothpick Eastwood-style and twitchin' my big striped tail, and squinted around. My right hand hovered over my six-shooter. On my left hand was what looked like a tartan skirt for a Barbie doll. I hadn't put it there, but I was gonna find who done that, and we were a-gonna have a reckoning.

My steely gaze searching the near-infinite ranks of souls around me, I cleared my throat and announced:

"I'm lookin' for the man who kilt my paw."

 

[Hagrok]

The Pearly Gates slammed open like a pair o' saloon doors. I moseyed on in, chewin' on a toothpick Eastwood-style and twitchin' my big striped tail, and squinted around. My right hand hovered over my six-shooter. On my left hand was what looked like a tartan skirt for a Barbie doll. I hadn't put it there, but I was gonna find who done that, and we were a-gonna have a reckoning.

My steely gaze searching the near-infinite ranks of souls around me, I cleared my throat and announced:

"I'm lookin' for the man who kilt my paw."

That was truely awful

 

[Meffy]

Yes, it was. And the worst of it is... nobody can hear our screams. =@.@=

 

[I less than three logic]

The first time I read it I misread “squinted” as “squirted” which kind of made sense in a twisted humor sort of way. I was thinking, “that’s probably not the best way for a giant skunk to make a good first impression.”

 

[Meffy]

Heeee... No, we try to be very careful about that. =^_^=

 

[madmonk76]

A bunch of pointless philosophical mumbo-jumbo.


The fact is, one's beliefs about whether or not there is a soul have nothing to do with being a sociopath. You can't just decide to be a sociopath. You either are or you aren't.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. Run-on sentences and trite metaphors pounded my face like a luke-warm spoon. I picked my way through the rocks of twisted and spurious logic, looking for one that was strong enough to support an argument. More awkwardly-structured sentences were only a paragraph break away.

Nominated. (But, I see that he has been nominated twice already. Well, I hope you win, Steven Howard. That was [rule8]ing brilliant!!!)

 

[chance]

Nope, your wrong!

Without an immortal soul, how what Michael does affects other people is of no rational concern to him.

Because he can escape the consequences of his actions, you see.

Woops, he can only escape the consequences if:

a. The people he meets don’t fight back,
b. Society lets it happen, i.e. no police force or laws etc.
c. Michael is not concerned with getting caught or punished, i.e. he is ill.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

But suppose you DO have an immortal soul, an existence that cannot be terminated by any means. Both of you do.

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

There are a few hidden assumptions here.

You assume that if someone hurts me, I'm going to want to hunt him down and have my revenge in the afterlife. What if I'm not that mean-spirited, and just want to sit on a cloud feeling happy?

You place great stress on an eternal afterlife. Does that require me to punish, eternally, some person who has hurt me? 'Cos that would be an eternal hell for me too.

You assume that if there is an afterlife, and I meet the person who hurt me, I will win. Why? Is there any reason why he shouldn't successfully wrong me in the next life as in this?

Is there any reason why my afterlife shouldn't be filled with endless pain and injustice and wrong however I behave?

In summary: your idea connecting an eternal soul with ethics relies not only on the immortality of the soul but also on specific propositions about the afterlife which you have in no way demonstrated.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Overall, I like the story. You can over-analyze it and it will mean whatever you want it to mean. I have to say that it is too long and repetetive, which leads to it being predictable. Cut it down to three kills and the story will be greatly improved.

Thank you.

Point taken about the three kills. I did have a problem with trying to make each scene different so each scene would stick out in the readers mind.

It wound up being more than three because there were more than three attitudes I wanted to symbolize. Although perhaps "Genius Skeptic" and "Naive Skeptic" could've been combined.

But I only worked on it for five days in and amongst vacation time. So I wound up with five secondary characters, and there was a problem with repetitiveness.

But the goal wasn't a polished piece, just something that made a point.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Ah. I tend to rank "I'd rather" lower than privacy concerns. Also, the information the JREF has (for COPA reasons) isn't particularly useful for tracking someone down (grandstanding notwithstanding).

Besides, even creepy speech is ok... if the dude declared he was going to do something, that might be different, but there are better ways of tracking than name and state/province.

That's my real name, and my real location.

Look me up in the Baton Rouge phone book. That number doesn't work because it's a modem line, but the address is good.

So if the JREF---or anybody else---wants to get in touch with me, I am but a letter away.

So go ahead and call the cops.

In fact, I'll help you out.
Here is the number for the Louisiana State Police, heaquartered right here in good ole Baton Rouge: (225)925-6157

Call'em up. Let the cops investigate. We'll see who gets hauled off for being a nutcase.

 

[Beleth]

What [Beleth] means is, that if you apply the same logic used here to the Christian ideaology, then you should kill everyone as soon as they reach the "saved" point (i.e.-as children or right after baptism/repentence/whatever), in order to insure they reach heaven. Sure, you'll burn in Hell forever, but you're making the ultimate sacrifice (your eternal soul) to insure the ultimate good (eternal life) for everyone else. Since this life, we're told repeatedly in Christianity, is not important (except to the extent that you earn your reward), there's no reason to stay on this earth any longer than absolutely necessary.

And, as offensive as Christians would find this idea, that's how atheists feel when presented with the sophmoric argument of the OP. Both arguments ignore many of the other factors and ideas invovled, and use a twisted logic to reach a completely inane conclusion. IMO, both arguments are simply a long, drawn out combination of ad hominems and strawmen.

There's more to it than that, though... they both lead to a reductio ad absurdum that shows that somewhere along the line, the reasoning is faulty.

In the Christians-killing-baptisees scenario, it's that the Bible says nothing about what one should do to save the souls of others; it's only about what one should do to save oneself. Let others save themselves; it's not your responsibility. Now, people evangelizing may sound like a counterargument, but it isn't, since evangelists are spreading the word of God because God asks them to, not because it will save the people the evangelize to. You can lead a horse to water.

In the sociopath-killing-everyone scenario, it's that one can never be absolutely sure that one will not get caught, even if it's a dark foggy night. And I can't speak for everyone else here, but when I do something good for someone, I get an instant reward. I feel really happy for about half an hour afterwards. I was able to do something for someone else, and some chemical reaction or other kicks off inside me that makes me feel really, really good. Likewise, when I do something bad, I know it. I feel crappy for about a week. I don't believe I have a soul, but I can guess how awful I'd feel after I murdered someone, so it is therefore rational for me not to murder anyone.

 

[Roadtoad]

I marry him, he beats hell out of me with a Bible, cheats on me, drinks and drugs and lies, and then I divorce him 13 years later.

He goes on to buy himself a title on the internet, becomes pastor of a church, gets incredibly rich, and never once apologizes to me for his brutality, because God has forgiven him and it's all in the past, now.

No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Because any one of the rest of us would be.

(I hated the OP. Sorry. I never did groove on slander.)