Western Civilization and the Bible (have almost nothing in common)

There are some underlying values that all civilizations and groups have in common, and - judging by the way of life and displayed moral values of surviving hunter-gatherer societies today - have had in common since the dawn of time. Respect of property and elders, protection of children, egalitarianism etc. There are clay tablets with laws similar to the ten commandments that predate the Old Testament. Aka, they were IN WRITING before Christianity was first made up. They were also observed within the social dynamics of groups of people that didn't even have writing. They are instinctive, far older than any religion (certainly far, far older than the Abrahamic religions), and the Bible did almost nothing to define them or to promote them. Maybe brought some individual values to some individual primitive tribes here and there, but certainly not in Europe. The way a civilization is built can be broadly split into three layers: 1. the bottom layer, the foundation (the ideological beliefs that drive us as a community) 2. the middle layer, the expression of this ideology through behavior (our morality and ethics, unwritten laws of decency, hierarchical relationships, etc.) 3. the surface layer, the expression of behavior through our social infrastructure (laws, politics, arts and entertainment, fashion, industry, economy, traditions and customs and so on.) So, let's look at European civilization. Starting top to bottom:
3. The surface layer was almost entirely borrowed from pagan cultures - Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. Our justice system, political system, entertainment industry, and artistic expression are all taken from AG and AR and are still very similar today. Democracy, equality under a written law, forums and philosophy, school systems etc.
2. the middle layer, the behavior and morality of our civilization are based on universal values that far predate the Bible, in some cases even in writing (as mentioned above). They were not determined, and only in minor ways influenced by Christianity.
1. the foundational layer, the core ideology of Western civilization, is rooted in individual liberty, the strive for personal growth, and the promotion of scientific, cultural, and economic progress. This can be seen in all Western constitutions, major cultural movements, prevailing philosophical theories, and economic and political priniciples, as well as our underlying morality and behavioral patterns (more personal space, democracy, republics, and the voting system, funding of scientific research, the institutionalization of universities, the concept of human rights, the list goes on for some time). This is evident simply in the fact that this core ideology existed in ancient Western societies before Christianity, and they were brought back by the Enlightenment (the movement that promoted scepticism towards religion), and are the most important values we have today!

The only period in European history that did not have the values that we hold most dearly today was the period of Christian monopoly in Europe (from the rise of early Christian Emperors in the declining Roman Empire to the beginning of the Enlightenment). This was a period of absolute monarchies, slavery, and the suppression of science and reason, suppression of religious freedom, suppression of free expression, and so on - with plenty of historical examples to illustrate it. Almost every value we today hold in the West, every value that determines our morality and behavior, that in turn determines our society and way of life - runs in direct contradiction to the Bible, and in direct contradiction to how people lived under Christian hegemony before the Enlightenment.

My political views

My political stance is as follows

The world is too fucking complicated, and there is no society in which all problems can be solved by a universal, one-size-fits-all formula. Doctrines and platforms that aim at particular, pre-defined outcomes are dangerous because they ultimately fail at two things at once: their own goal, and the expectations of the people.

To me, one thing all parties in all countries around the world are universally guilty of is this: our political rivals propose a great solution to the problem we're having, but we're going to oppose it because we don't want to give them political credit or boost their popularity and influence.

The only political 'platform' that has a chance to produce both short- and long-term solutions to as many political, economic, social or cultural issues is the skeptical and analytical approach on a case-by-case basis. We look at the problem, we look at all possible solutions regardless of our political affiliations, and we implement the best solution irrespective of which party, person, or group of power it might promote or benefit politically. 

Therefore, my place on the political spectrum is that of a true centrist - that is to say a centrist who wants the best solution for every problem, and doesn't give a flying fuck whether that solution is gonna come from the left or the right as long as it's the best one, or as close to it as we can get.

Criticism of centrism

There are three main arguments against centrism and centrists. These are:

1. Centrists are cowards who don't want to stand up for something and to defend their position;
2. Centrism is basically populism;
3. Centrism does not provide long-term strategies, it's just patching up whatever problem arises without committing to long-term solutions and visions for the future.

Any or all of these points may be true for some people or movements who call themselves centrist, but they are not true of actual TRUE CENTRISM. 

1. Centrism is not cowardice or non-commitment. It's commitment to political solutions and well-being that does not concern itself with political tribalism and partisanship. The football fan who watches the game without rooting for either of the two teams is a centrist; you DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A FAVORITE TEAM IN ORDER TO LOVE THE GAME.
2. Centrism is not populism. Populism is going with the public opinion to appease the masses. Centrism concerns itself with the best possible solution for every problem - and the masses don't always necessarily know what's best for them, or even understand the root of the problem at all. Populists may call themselves centrists, but they are lying, plain and simple.
3. Centrism is committed to the long-term strategy of creating a political, economic, social, and cultural environment that provides the widest possible range of options for dealing with problems and promoting liberty and well-being. The ultimate goal is to be free of any shackles of doctrine, platforming, tribalism, and gradually move out of a partisan model of government altogether. We want a society of free critical thinkers.

My view on Political Correctness and Social Justice

I am against them for a very simple reason: I want equality, freedom, diversity, inclusivity, and tolerance. The PC and SJ movements do not. They work against the very ideals that they claim to support.

Political Correctness means to take the concept of 'correctness', aka doing the right thing, and making it a political tool. Social Justice means taking the concept of 'justice', and making it a tool for tribal warfare. Correctness with a caveat is not true Correctness; and similarly, Justice with a caveat is not actual Justice.

Furthermore, these two concepts are both intrinsically racist and sexist - and I'm not even talking about them being racist and sexist against white people, even though you can make a compelling case for that, too. No, PC and SJ are racist and sexist against women and minorities. Both of these concepts work off of the view that a group of people, e.g. black people, are all the same, that they all feel the same, want the same, think the same, and are in the same position. Truth is, a "group" of people like black people is not a group of anything: it's just PEOPLE - these are individuals with their own thoughts, motives, desires, fears, strengths and weaknesses. Claiming to speak on their behalf as if that would be possible is inherently demeaning and absolutely, undeniably moronic.

And lastly, Western societies have been moving towards promoting and achieving equality, diversity, inclusivity and so on long before PC and SJ appeared. That, to me, is a pretty strong indicator that society as is was already doing the right thing. PC and SJ go against society as is. And if society was already moving in the right direction, and you want to divert it... well, then you're not going in the right direction, now, are you?

Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization... NOT

I'm sick and tired of hearing this piece of ignorance:

Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity.

Oh, yeah? Which part, exactly?

Let's take a look, shall we?

• The State: the concept of equal citizens under one law, legislation, the military apparatus, appointment of government officials, the monetary system, the judicial system - basically ALL functions of a modern nation and its government, administration, politics, and division of responsibilities is Ancient Greek and Roman, and was neither imported into Europe by Jews or Christians nor invented on the basis of the Bible.
• Culture: the arts and their manifestation, fashion, celebrity status, even the porn industry are based on Ancient Greek and Roman models. Court musicians, art exhibits, the theater, public poetry recitals, philosophical debates - these are all pagan, and have existed before and out of the Christian realm, and were neither imported into Europe by Jews or Christians nor invented on the basis of the Bible.
• Morality: the core concepts of cooperation, rules, and common decency in a society are far older than any form of Christianity and have existed long before the Bible. The particular tenets: don't kill, don't steal, respect your neighbor, do your job to get paid, carry yourself in public in accordance with what is deemed appropriate, don't lie - these are all universal and the basis for all modern societies that have evolved before Judeo-Christianity and independently from it. And they have all existed in Europe before and independently from any Christian tradition or norm, as evidenced by Ancient Greek and Roman law, law in the pre-Christian Byzantine Empire, the pagan Bulgarian Khanate, and others. 

               - As for the very details of morality: WHICH rules, WHAT EXACTLY is considered common decency, etc., only a few can be attributed to Christianity and found in the Bible, and most of THESE, while in the Bible, have existed throughout Europe before Christianity.

• Economy: No modern concepts or instruments of economy, labor, and the market are Judeo-Christian. 

So, which part of Western Civilization is Christian, again? The fact that people who were Christian, or claimed to be Christian, did things in non-Christian ways, doesn't make a civilization or society Christian. Christianity didn't give us any of the foundations of modern, or even of Medieval society and civilization. Christianity merely did what Christianity always does: it showed up and appropriated them.

The Evil of Faith

Faith, by definition, requires the absence of evidence. Thus, the prerequisite for faith in a religion or a god is to have no grounds or objective justification for believing at all. Belief in God is, and must be, mere wishful thinking.

Animals have basic needs related to their survival and procreation, and seek instant gratification. Humans have a need that goes beyond that of all other animals: the need for purpose. But finding your purpose is an arduous process and success is not guaranteed. Humanity is, after all, in the infant stages of its intellectual, cultural, and moral lifecycle.

Inventing a purpose for yourself that is based on faith, aka no reason or justification, but rather mere wishful thinking, offers instant gratification and the illusion and comfort of pretending you have a purpose. It’s the intellectual, cultural, and moral reaction of an animal having no concept or regard for anything beyond its own self. The concept of operating on faith takes away the one driving force behind the progress of humanity. A person content with an imaginary purpose stops looking for a real one and holds back others (we don’t live in a bubble, and we are all influenced by others in one way or another).

To those who wish to argue that 1. faith in god can be based on evidence, or 2. that a faith-based purpose can still be truthful, real, useful, my answer is simple: 

1. evidence-based faith isn’t faith, it’s a hypothesis; and so far, all proposed ‘evidence’ for the hypothesis of god has been thoroughly debunked by people and by fields of science concerned with seeking the truth – people and disciplines that would accept tangible evidence for what it is. 
2. there’s no reason to think that (belief requires the absence of reason). And there’s a myriad of reasons not to think that (the moral evil done by religion in the world outweighs the good by far; faith-based purpose has never produced substantial progress; substantial progress has been halted by faith-based purpose on multiple occasions throughout the world’s history; etc. etc. etc. etc.)

Thus, faith in god is, in my opinion, an intellectual, cultural, and moral Evil.

Literally

There seems to be some confusion circulating the social media as to the nature of the word 'literally'. Language purists insists that the word be used for one purpose only: to indicate something that is real, on point, without exaggeration.

These language purists don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

The word 'literally' in the sense of 'figuratively' has been in use for centuries, and a quick search in dictionaries such as the Oxford one or the Miriam-Webster one confirms it. Its usage in this context is well established, and has been used by the likes of Dickens and Fitzgerald.

And yet, this word is one of my pet peeves. Why?

Because I'm one of the other language purists. The ones that insist words be used appropriately, with regard to their individual etymology, gradation, power, balance, connotation...

In its meaning as a synonym for 'figuratively', the word 'literally' exudes intensity. In such a context, the word stands for something that 'is not literal but it's so strong it might as well have been'.

He was desperately in love with her for five years; but she had never acknowledged his existence before. Today, she touched his hand and smiled at him. He literally beamed.

What does this context infer? He didn't actually beam. He neither lit up like a light bulb nor did he transmit a radio signal. But it felt like he was: and powerfully so. The use of the word 'literally' stands in this context for great intensity and raw emotion.

We should not discuss whether the word 'literally' can or cannot be used in the sense of something that isn't actually real. It can, and that dispute has been shut down two and a half centuries ago.

What we should discuss is how to stop its usage for mundane shit that does not justify or deserve its power: often immediately after "... like,".

Invisible Bear

You live in a house. Your neighbor tells you that you have a bear in your backyard. You check your backyard but you see nothing out of the ordinary. No damage to your fence, no tracks, no noises, no strands of bear fur. 

Your neighbor insists that it's an invisible bear and you have to surrender your backyard to him, otherwise the bear will inflict horrible torture on you and your kin after you die.

When you ask him for evidence, he insists that the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no invisible bear in your backyard. 

He then presents a book in which the author claims that he had previously spoken to an eyewitness, and the eyewitness had confirmed the existence of the invisible bear in your backyard. 

When you ask your neighbor for proof that the book tells the truth, he presents a passage of the book that clearly states, "EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK IS TRUE! YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT OR ELSE!..." 

Your neighbor also tells you that he has personally felt the presence of the bear. He had a dream, and in the dream he heard bear growls coming from your backyard.

When you tell your neighbor that you refuse to give your backyard to him without any tangible evidence for the existence of an invisible bear, your neighbor calls you a morally corrupt nihilist, and informs you that you're condemned to eternal torture.

You spend the rest of your life dealing with people who look down on you, call you names, boycott you politically, and insist that they have moral superiority over you because you don't believe in the invisible bear in your backyard.

In the meantime, your neighbors commit horrible atrocities to each other and to others claiming that it's how they keep the invisible bear in your backyard from becoming angry.

A long time passes. Eventually, clever and well-equipped people in lab coats start researching your backyard. Some look for tracks, others listen for noises. Thousands of people with everything from heat detectors to trapping equipment try for a very long time to find any trace of any bear in your backyard, and come up empty. 

Your neighbor claims that these people are an evil cult that worships the invisible bear's archenemy, the invisible snake, and that the invisible bear's existence in your backyard can only be confirmed by believing in its existence without question or doubt, and by giving up your backyard.

The people in lab coats examine the old book and confirm that parts of it are forged, and the rest speaks of things that never happened, things that directly contradict one another, and things that can be demonstrated to be false right in front of you. The people in lab coats proceed to show all of their evidence that clearly confirms that there's no justification to believe in an invisible bear, and that the things written in the old book aren't true.

Your neighbor responds that the invisible snake falsified all the proof to make it look like there's no invisible bear in your backyard. He then also proceeds to interpret the old book by continuously making things up so that the old book seems like it's not contradicting itself and that it's not speaking of things that aren't true. He further proceeds to falsify counter-evidence for the existence of the invisible bear in your backyard, and gets angry when the people in lab coats debunk it.

The people in lab coats, in the meantime, have used all their research to find ways to dramatically improve the sanitation, food and water treatment, infrastructure, transportation, medicine, education, safety, and sustainability in your neighborhood, resulting in greatly improved longevity, happiness, morality, and progress in your neighborhood, and saving countless lives.

Your neighbor insists that they should drop what they're doing, bow down to the invisible bear in your backyard and accept it in their hearts, and follow the teachings of the old book (that had been repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense).

Occasionally, your neighbor rallies up other neighbors to defend themselves against the neighborhood across the street that believes you have an invisible lion in your backyard, and that all who don't believe in the invisible lion must be slain or enslaved.

Stories

Life is a random story generator.

Life tells a few billion stories a day, every day. And out of those, only a minuscule fraction are stories worth hearing. These are the handful of stories in which everything clicks together just right: for moral choices to have profound effects; for certain actions to lead to particular consequences at precisely right moments of time and space; for the fates of many people to intertwine to create the funny spin, the unexpected twist, the dramatic ending.

These are the stories that hold more than the average everyday randomness all of us are subjected to every moment of our lives. It's through this clear and precise causality chain, this clash of precisely incompatible views, this precisely right person at the precisely wrong place and time that can give a story a grain of truth or a grain of wisdom.

And that is what literature tries to emulate. We as writers want to tell stories that are among the handful of stories worth hearing that day. It is why the revolver on the wall in Act 1 has to fire in Act 4... it's meant to. Because if it doesn't, then our story is merely one of the few billion stories of the day that ends with 'some stuff happened, and that doesn't tell anyone anything of value, the end'.

Literature is not a dice roll; it's a gambit. It's believable enough to be born out of the chaos and randomness of life, but it clicks together just right, entwines fates, puts the right people in the wrong place at the wrong time, makes it so moral choices have profound effects...

So that in the end, the grain that irritates the eye of the reader and prompts a tear - be it a tear of joy, sadness, or sheer adrenaline - is a grain of truth or a grain of wisdom rather than a random speck of dust.