Philosophical black holes: Internet memes

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 14, 2015

Philosophical black holes: Internet memes

The internet is a breeding ground for memes (a meme is a saying or image that spreads rapidly over the internet as internet users re-post the saying or image). Some memes promote what I call Philosophical Black Holes, i.e., philosophical ideas that, if not carefully considered, suck unsuspecting readers into intellectual darkness.

Let's take a critical look at three popular memes.

Meme 1. “Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behaviour does.”

Pause and think: for these claims to make moral sense depends on what one believes “a better person” is. It also depends on what one believes is good behaviour or what a better person ought to do.

Didn't serial killer Ted Bundy believe that “a better person” was one who is daring and willing to rape and murder? He did.

Surely, then, we should seek out and believe what's right, true, excellent, and good. Not any behaviour will do. In other words, ideas have consequences, so the idea—i.e., what is believed—matters.

We should of course concede that beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. Nevertheless, for behaviour to amount to something good requires accurate beliefs about what is the good. To paraphrase the Apostle James (and adding a dash of Immanuel Kant): belief without behaviour is dead, but behaviour without belief is blind.

Beliefs do make you a better person, if you believe—and subsequently act upon—whatever is right, true, excellent, and good.

Meme 2. “It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love, or how you love, it matters only that you love.”

Here's a criticism that cuts to the chase: “I love you,” said the cannibal to his dinner. “I love you,” said the pedophile to the child. “I love you,” said the Marquis de Sade to his torture victims.

Clearly, love has moral boundaries. Love isn't mere subjectivity/ feeling, contrary to what popular culture tells us. Love—true love—has a defining moral structure.

Meme 3 is a doozey: “We live in a society where people can't survive if they're not judging the next person. If you're proud of who you are and don't give two [cents] what anyone thinks, share [this post].”

This meme seemingly presents an attitude against judging others.

But look carefully at the last sentence.

The last sentence makes the implied judgment—yes, judgment—that if I don't share this post, then either (a) I am not proud of who I am or (b) I give two cents about what others think (or both). So, if I don't share the post, I have a problem.

On the other hand, if I do share the post, then I have a different problem. Contrary to what I'm agreeing to in the post, I obviously do care what people think.

How so? By sharing the post, which claims I don't give two cents about what people think, I show that I do give two cents: I obviously want people to think I don't give two cents about what they think! Also (if I'm honest), I probably won't be proud of myself for pretending not to give two cents when in fact I am giving two cents.

So if I don't share the post, there's something wrong with me; and if I do share the post, there's something wrong with me.

In other words, under the pretense of encouraging people not to judge others, the author of this meme is encouraging people to judge others—as are those who re-post it!

Overall lessons: To avoid letting memes suck you into Philosophical Black Holes, read carefully. And, to help others not get sucked into such holes, read carefully before you re-post.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Is religion the cause of fighting?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, January 31, 2013

Is religion the cause of fighting?

The internet (especially Facebook) is full of cartoons and quips that deserve critical reflection.

Not long ago I saw a single-frame cartoon that depicts the planet Earth from a perspective near the moon, the Earth has nuclear bombs exploding all over it, and two aliens pass by in a space ship. One alien says to the other, "As near as I can tell, they're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful!"

Okay, there is some humour here. It’s ironic and funny (in a slightly warped way) that purportedly peaceful religious people fight over religious matters. And, definitely, we've had too much religious fighting.

But I wonder if the cartoon’s caption would portray reality more accurately if it read as follows: “As near as I can tell, they’re fighting over which atheist ideology will bring in the most peaceful society”?

Some perspective is needed here. In the secular West, Christianity is considered by many (e.g., the “New Atheists”) to be the world's bogeyman, so let’s compare the goings-on of some officially atheist societies with that of some predominately Christian ones.

As far as I can tell from history, the major horrors of Christian Europe—i.e., the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition—amounted to the murdering of about 1.4 million people. This is terrible and wrong, to be sure.

Significantly, however, the following numbers of people murdered under officially atheist regimes should also be noticed. In China (Mao Soviets 1923-1948; People's Republic of China 1949-1987): 80,170,000 murders. In the U.S.S.R (1917-1987): 61,911,000 murders.

The total murders for officially atheist U.S.S.R. and China exceeds 142 million.

Clearly, officially atheist regimes are responsible for many more killings—over a hundred times as many—than predominantly Christian societies.

(Note: The above numbers are from Rudolph Rummel, a Nobel Peace Prize nominated political science professor emeritus at U of Hawaii, whose life-work has focused on genocides and democides.)

Yes, Christians have done and do bad things. Nevertheless, it’s good to remember that when Christians do those bad things they go against the teachings of Jesus Christ. According to Jesus, the two greatest commandments are these: (1) love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and (2) love your neighbour as yourself (where "neighbour" includes the rest of humanity).

Mao, Stalin and company, on the other hand, were doing what their atheistic philosophies approved.

At this juncture, a response (which I've encountered on the internet) is that religion, especially Christianity, should still be condemned. Why? Because there are (it is alleged) statistics that tell us that as many as 9 million women were killed by the witch hunts during the 15th and 17th centuries.

In reply, we should note that the 9 million figure is seriously inflated.

Sam Harris (who is no friend of religion) estimates in his 2004 book End of Faith that the number of witch killings in Europe amounted to 100,000. This number is also held by Rummel (the Nobel-nominated expert on genocides and democides, mentioned above). Also, Philip Sampson (PhD in social sciences) in his 2001 book Six Modern Myths refers to research which suggests 40,000 to 100,000.

Yes, every “witch” killing is tragic, but an estimate of 9 million is a far cry from 100,000. It’s an inflation of 8,900%. It's 9,000 times the true value.

Surely, then, we should continue to challenge the internet cartoon's message (or at least its apparent subtext) by remembering the truth: Compared to Christianity, the vast majority of genocidal-type murders have been due to officially atheist political regimes.

Why is this important? It’s important because our internet culture indoctrinates the unwary—e.g., our children—with the lie that religion—especially Christianity—is to blame for many or most of our world’s problems. However, in the case of Christianity, as I will argue in a future column, the truth is much different: Christianity has been a huge source of good.

As a teaser for my future column, think of the cross in the Red Cross, think of the "C" in YMCA, think of the fact that most of the West's first major universities were established as Christian schools, think of William Wilberforce and his work to abolish slavery in Britain because of his Christian conviction that all people are made in God's image, think of contemporary Christian relief agencies such as World Vision, The Salvation Army, Mennonite Central Committee, Samaritan's Purse, Mission To Children, Africa Mercy.

Read the internet with care. Maybe read more history, too.

P.S. Please know that I'm not suggesting that every atheist commits atrocities, because, of course, they don't. For the record, most of my atheist friends and acquaintances are very decent people. Also, I'm not suggesting that religious people are wholly innocent, because, of course, they aren't. For the record, most of my religious friends and acquaintances are very decent people, too. I am merely challenging the falsehood—that Christianity is a major cause of the world's fighting and suffering—which is supported by the internet cartoon and has for many people become “common knowledge.”

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Thinking about internet memes: belief, behaviour, love

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, October 25, 2012

Thinking about internet memes

The internet, especially Facebook, is a breeding ground for memes (a meme is a saying or image, usually both, that spreads over the internet as users re-post the saying or image). Some memes, if not carefully considered, promote philosophical ideas that suck the unsuspecting reader into intellectual darkness. For the sake of shining some light into the darkness—and thereby hopefully helping people not to get sucked in—let's take a critical look at two popular memes.

Meme 1: "Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does." The text of this meme usually appears printed with chalk on a blackboard, as if a school teacher were instructing us.

Besides seeing this on the internet, I have seen a version espoused by an attorney in Psychology Today magazine (May 1, 2012): "To me, it's what [one] does in life that matters, not what [one] believes."

But let's pause and think. For the meme to make moral sense depends on what one believes "a better person" is. It also depends on what one believes is behaviour that is good or what a better person ought to do. It also depends on what one believes matters in life.

Think about this: Serial killer Ted Bundy (rapist and murderer of over 20 women) believed that “a better person” is one who is daring and willing to rape and murder.

In other words, ideas have consequences, so the idea, i.e., what is believed, matters.

As philosopher David Horner points out in his book Mind Your Faith (InterVarsity Press 2011), "what we believe will determine how we behave, and ultimately who we become."

Clearly, then, we should make every effort to discern whatever is right and true and excellent and good.

Of course, beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. To paraphrase the Apostle James: belief without behaviour is dead.

But we should also add the whole counsel of Scripture (and reason): behaviour without belief is blind.

My point: To ensure that our behaviour amounts to something truly good also requires accurate beliefs about what is truly good.

Meme 2. "It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love, or how you love, it matters only that you love." This meme often appears with a photo of, and is attributed to, the late John Lennon, ex-Beatle, famous for the song "Imagine."

Yes, this meme seems soooo loving (and, yes, one can almost hear “Imagine” in the background).

But let's pause and think: "I love you," said the married businessman to his good-looking female secretary, as the businessman abandons his young children along with his wife who is dying of cancer.

Let's pause and think some more: "I love you," said the cannibal to his dinner; "I love you," said the pedophile to the child; "I love you," said the sadist to his torture victims.

You get the point. Clearly, we must define "love." Love has a moral structure, which includes moral boundaries. (Yes, John Lennon, we should also imagine that.)

Jesus, who Christians believe is God come to Earth as a human being, taught that love is of utmost importance, and He modeled love for us. Significantly, Jesus also taught that He didn't abolish the moral law. (For those who doubt this: Keep in mind that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, but, according to the record, He also told her to leave her life of sin.)

Overall lesson: Love in accordance with the good—and read the internet carefully.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)