Satanism - an atheistic religion of common sense

[Inevitable Droid]

I just really don't like the terminology....

Fair enough.

I also don't think ethics are self determined; they have to be contemplated within the context of a social group as to do otherwise defeats the purpose of morals...to allow us to get along with each other

Yet it is you who have determined for yourself what the purpose of morals is.  Other thinkers have offered other purposes for morals; for example, personal happiness, or mental health, or self-actualization.  Additionally, having decided that morality's purpose is to allow us to get along with each other, you probably decide for yourself what behaviors are most conducive to us all getting along.  Would I be right about that?

[Whitney]

Yet it is you who have determined for yourself what the purpose of morals is.  Other thinkers have offered other purposes for morals; for example, personal happiness, or mental health, or self-actualization.  Additionally, having decided that morality's purpose is to allow us to get along with each other, you probably decide for yourself what behaviors are most conducive to us all getting along.  Would I be right about that?

No, I think we can use studies of other animals as well as humans to prove that all social creatures develop some form of moral system for the purpose of getting along as a group.  If morality is viewed as an evolved trait then it means that there are right and wrong actions based on how it affects society and with study we can develop a formula or test for figuring out what is right and wrong.  It's not just people making whatever up based on some arbitrary basis; there are likely biological factors controlling our reactions to moral questions just like we are biologically programed to be grossed out by certain imagery and smells. I don't think I'm just making this stuff up incorrectly based on my own limited knowledge because scientists have written papers and books on the matter (of which I have yet to read though).

[Heretical Rants]

The terminology may be unappealing to some atheists, but certainly the underlying message is one that most (perhaps all) atheists embrace.

...except for the socialist ones, and some of the buddhist ones, and some of those other ones, too.

Why would socialism or Buddhism conflict with making oneself, saving oneself, or inspiring oneself, as described in my prior post?

Socialism, as I understand it, is a political ideology centered on the class struggle, the rights of workers to the fruits of their labors, and economic equality.  It doesn't seem to have any bearing on one's relationship to oneself.  Satanists can embrace socialism.
 
Buddhism, as I understand it, is a methodology for achieving inner peace by quieting thought, quieting emotion, and quieting appetite.  This methodology can be viewed as self-making, self-saving, and self-inspring.  Satanists can embrace Buddhism.

Absolutely, but depending on how deep into all of these things you want to get, you have to choose on some points or there will be some contradictions.


Since you seem to be talking about philosophy and not dogma, picking and choosing is perfectly acceptable, is it not?  Of course, some satanists might not really consider you to be a "real" satanist if you do this.

[Inevitable Droid]

Absolutely, but depending on how deep into all of these things you want to get, you have to choose on some points or there will be some contradictions.

Could you provide some specific contradictions between socialism and Satanism, and between Buddhism and Satanism?  If we're moving beyond I-Theism to some of the other components of Satanism, I may grant your position, but right now I'm too unsure of specifics.

Since you seem to be talking about philosophy and not dogma, picking and choosing is perfectly acceptable, is it not?  Of course, some satanists might not really consider you to be a "real" satanist if you do this.

Here again I would need specifics.  Satanists view the Nine Satanic Statements, the Nine Satanic Sins, Pentagonal Revisionism, and the Eleven Rules of the Earth as common sense for the Satanist.  For a Satanist to reject any of those (or any portions of those) would be viewed as rejecting common sense.  Any alleged dichotomy between philosophy on one hand, and dogma on the other, doesn't really apply here.  It isn't dogma to say, "That stove is hot.  Don't touch it unless you want to get burned."  But it isn't philosophy, either, as I understand philosophy, since what has been said isn't open to debate.

[Inevitable Droid]

No, I think we can use studies of other animals as well as humans to prove that all social creatures develop some form of moral system for the purpose of getting along as a group.  If morality is viewed as an evolved trait then it means that there are right and wrong actions based on how it affects society and with study we can develop a formula or test for figuring out what is right and wrong.

To the extent I understand what you've said, Whitney, I would pick out the following premises or hypotheses:
1. Non-human animals have moral systems.
2. Non-human animals developed their moral systems for a purpose.
3. Human animals developed their moral systems for the same purpose as non-human animals did.
4. Morality is best viewed as an evolved trait.
5. An evolved trait can be evaluated from a natural selection (survival) perspective.
6. Survival as a measuring rod allows morality to rest on objective grounds.

Of the above, only the fifth is self-evident.  The others are all debatable, and have in fact been debated quite vigorously by philosophers and scientific theoreticians.  Reasonable people have contended instead as follows:
1. Non-human animals do not have moral systems, but merely exhibit behaviors we human observers anthropomorphise as being moral.
2. Non-human animals do not necessarily develop behaviors for a purpose, as sometimes these behaviors simply arise out of genetics.
3. Human animals have developed moral systems for a variety of purposes, not all having to do with people getting along with one another, an example being the moral code of the ancient Jews, which had many moral mandates surrounding one's relationship to God, as opposed to one's relationship with other people.
4. Morality is best viewed as either intrinsically true or intrinsically false, without reference to natural selection.
5. (No reasonable person would dispute the fifth point above.)
6. Taking survival as a measuring rod for morality is itself an arbitrary choice, and therefore cannot provide the ground for a non-arbitrary (objective) morality.

What I am attempting to do in the above is demonstrate the debatability of a certain perspective regarding morality, as a way of suggesting the debatability of absolutely any perspective regarding morality.  If we grant universal debatability, which admittedly is hard (if not impossible) to prove, although I intuitively accept it and have never encountered a logical reason for rejecting it that held up under sustained scrutiny, then as soon as we encounter someone having come to any sort of conclusions regarding morality, we must identify those conclusions as self-identified and self-chosen for reasons self-prioritized.
 

I don't think I'm just making this stuff up incorrectly based on my own limited knowledge because scientists have written papers and books on the matter (of which I have yet to read though).

You are entirely correct that scientists have written papers and books on the matter.  I would only contend that not everyone agrees with what these scientists have written.  Not even all scientists agree.  Certainly all philosophers don't agree.  Here again, my only point is this: debatability implies the necessity of making a choice based on something other than objective fact alone.  That choice is what I have described as Self as Holy Spirit, a component of I-Theism.

[Whitney]

but my position is that I am inclined to think that in time we will understand the minds of humans and animals more and as we do that will discover that morality is driven by hard science in a predictable manner...so I wouldn't agree with the satanist view of morality even if my position is potentially incorrect.

[Inevitable Droid]

but my position is that I am inclined to think that in time we will understand the minds of humans and animals more and as we do that will discover that morality is driven by hard science in a predictable manner...so I wouldn't agree with the satanist view of morality even if my position is potentially incorrect.

Fair enough.  Is it your position, then, that your own morals are the result of natural selection and its impact on what genes you were born with?  Or is it instead, perhaps, your position that your own morals are the ones you were taught by society, and the reason society taught you those morals is because natural selection favored societies that taught those morals to their members?  In either case, I would ask you, did you ever engage in the mental exercise of questioning, pruning, and refining your own morals?  If you ever did, how do you relate that to either the genetics hypothesis or the naturally selected society hypothesis, or some other hypothesis that represents your position with respect to the origin of your own morals?

[Whitney]

I think we should expect to find that our feelings towards moral questions have a genetic component (we already know about empathy in humans and other animals) and that we'll find it is based on how our actions affect society; I just don't know how we go about deciding what society we actually care about:  does it stop at family, friends, work mates, community, city, state, country, humans, all life?  I think what we view as our 'tribe' may be what ultimately creates the differences in moral views because each 'tribe' has different needs.  This wold also explain why religious people take on the morals of their religious group.  This would also mean that choosing that tribe is learned or even actively changed throughout one's life based on various reasons.

I don't agree that people just make stuff up for all sorts of reasons and call it morals...I don't even think it's right to call something a moral idea if it isn't related to how it affects others; it's just doing whatever you want if others aren't taken into consideration.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think we should expect to find that our feelings towards moral questions have a genetic component (we already know about empathy in humans and other animals) and that we'll find it is based on how our actions affect society; I just don't know how we go about deciding what society we actually care about:  does it stop at family, friends, work mates, community, city, state, country, humans, all life?

I agree that declining to undermine or sabotage one's tribe has probably been selected for.  The problem nowadays is deciding the boundaries and parameters of tribe - my paraphrase of what you say above.  Currently in Western society, individuals make that decision idiosyncratically, as determined by their genes and their personal histories.

I think what we view as our 'tribe' may be what ultimately creates the differences in moral views because each 'tribe' has different needs.  This would also explain why religious people take on the morals of their religious group.  This would also mean that choosing that tribe is learned or even actively changed throughout one's life based on various reasons.

Agreed on all points.  I would even go further in the same direction, by replacing the "based on various reasons" phrase with, "as determined by their genes and their personal histories."  Do you agree with that replacement?

Genes and personal histories are relative to the individual.  Personal histories are, for our purposes, random, in the sense of being unpredictable given current knowledge.  But perhaps the genes responding to personal history to choose tribe are strongly consistent across the human genome, such that, deviants from the norm would be viewed as mutants.  We don't know this to be the case, but neither do we know it not to be.  Time and further research will tell.

Still, if we grant strong consistency with respect to genes, we are faced nonetheless with high variability with respect to personal histories.  This is a relativity we can't escape short of a radical program of social control on a scale never attempted and never even imagined except in fiction.  And even if a group of powerful people make the attempt, their goals will be determined by their own genes and their own personal histories, the latter being highly variable.

I don't agree that people just make stuff up for all sorts of reasons and call it morals...I don't even think it's right to call something a moral idea if it isn't related to how it affects others; it's just doing whatever you want if others aren't taken into consideration.

If others can include God then I agree with the above.  I would certainly grant that others can include such tribes as the State or one's political party, or one's church.  In fact, I am gravitating to the notion that a personal God really represents, deep in the psyche of its adherents, their church personified.  Thus, for the Greek Orthodox, Jesus is a symbol that represents the Greek Orthodox Church - and of course the Greek Orthodox Church is a tribe.  We seem to be on solid ground if we assert that all gods are tribal symbols representing the tribe.
 
Morality as tribalism and tribalism as genetically compelled and naturally selected is a promising construct.  I would be astonished if science ever contradicted or even seriously questioned this notion.  The high variability of personal histories as one of the two key components of tribal identification would tend to undermine any possibility of discovering a systematic morality - but maybe morality doesn't have to be systematic, or else maybe we should invent a system, rather than trying to discover it.

The problem with leaving morality unsystematic is that we get no help in any of our social projects.  We want wars to stop.  We want pollution to stop.  We want starvation to end.  We want illness to be eradicated.  We want human population growth to be brought under control or its deleterious effects otherwise mitigated.  Unsystematic morality won't help us with any of these.

The other option is to invent systematic morality.  This of course would represent Self as Holy Spirit, and thus be supportive of the Satanic concept of I-Theism, but at this point in our discussion, Whitney, I find myself more interested in the proposition you've put forward and I have merely paraphrased: morality as tribalism and tribalism as genetically compelled and naturally selected.  The power of this proposition is its almost inevitable capacity to trigger head-nods of agreement in anyone who hears it, or at least any atheist, Deist, or pantheist who hears it.  If we take this proposition as our starting point, we then can simply decide to posit the desirability of the broadest possible boundaries and parameters for tribe, which of course leads us to Homo sapiens as the ideal tribe choice.

Once Homo sapiens is chosen as our tribe, our naturally selected genetic tendency toward tribalism will compel us to want wars to stop, pollution to stop, starvation to end, illness to be eradicated, and population growth to be brought under control or its deleterious effects otherwise mitigated.  The practical good, the earthly benefit to earthly creatures, will be immense.

I find myself imagining a marketing campaign centered around the slogan, "My tribe is Homo sapiens."  I picture T-shirts, coffee cups, mousepads and gym bags with the slogan emblazoned on it.  Such a simple thing could help ferment the salvation of our species in the minds of our best and brightest.