RationalWiki:EvoWiki/Does evolution conflict with religion and morality

Howard Hill : Atheist philosopher of science

Contents

1.   Preliminary Discussion 2.   Absolute theocracy 3.   Extravagant audacity 4.   Truth changes nothing 5.   Inverted reality 6.   Pivots of observation 7.   The all pervasive subversion of knowledge

Part II

8.   Does evolution conflict with religion and morality ? 9.   Gatekeepers 10. Darwinism is not evolution, it is religion 11. Overt versus covert authority 12. Positive atheism 13. The nature of language 14. Atheist : non-moral realist 15. Realism 16. Morality 17. Semantic closure 18. Concluding remarks

Note, this was written for EvoWiki, before I tried to post it and found the site was no longer active, having combined with RationalWiki. Also, I am new to this wiki posting and the editing is going to take a little getting use to, all my italics have been erased, and I may get back to this item, time permitting. Meantime, enjoy, as it is.

Preliminary Discussion

It may seem presumptuous to create a page in ones own name, but as someone has kindly seen fit to use my work by way of defining an evolutionary based philosophy, that of a ‘non-moral realist’, it must be of value for the subject of the definition—myself—to respond in a little depth. Allocating a page in my name seemed the only thing to do. What I have to say will be of considerable significance for the key objective of this site, I have not said it before, it is written for this site, and I am certain the like of my analysis will of been seen by no one before, anywhere.

I am not especially interested in the creationist controversy, just as, though I deal with religion at length one way or another, I am not really interested in religion, and hence I am not remotely interested in communicating with people for whom religion is precious. I am an atheist philosopher. I have been working on my ideas for some years now, though my central idea was fairly new to me when my name was applied to this ‘non-moral realist’ category of atheism, in an article posted to EvoWiki in 2003. I now call my philosophy Atheist Science. I do so because my discovery of the true science of human nature, begged the question about the science we have all about us. A major theme of my effort to understand my own subject, involved the negative aspect of understanding the control and management of knowledge in society that suppressed a true science of life, leaving the way open to a maverick, intellectually inclined layman like myself, to rediscover the true path. The sublimation of science by the academic establishment comes to a focus in the science of sociology, but the ability to entirely pervert this science, required that biology should be subverted at its heart, before any further priestcraft could be worked in the hallowed sanctuaries of our academic world, which have always existed to serve the theocracy, and still do.

Absolute theocracy

A core element of my work therefore concerns the nature of our society as an absolute theocracy, by which I mean a society ruled by an iron fist of religion, where there is no free access to knowledge of reality, and hence no freedom of thought, and no freedom of expression. I am English, and I live in England. You may take it that whatever I say of England I mean to apply equally to America, and indeed to all Western societies, we may as well include all other societies past and present while we are at it, and sadly, I suspect, all societies of the future to come. It is difficult to see how we can ever live in a free world ; still, one lives in hope. My work makes available the knowledge that we would have access to, if we lived in a genuinely free world, for those few people who, like myself, have an irrepressible urge to know the truth ; a desire which seems to go hand in hand with a pathological resistance to all authority, without amounting to any sociopathic intent, but rather a desire for freedom vested in the self. Having this knowledge that I offer, is as good as freedom gets for now.

Extravagant audacity

These opening statements are bound to seem extravagant, so it is worth pointing out that all is as nature intended it should be. We are not meant to live in a genuinely free world, and for the most part there is no need to do so. Why, when we are so familiar with the idea of being suspended in a flux of universal forces, should we scientifically inclined folk, ever think it might be otherwise ? Just because we are not free does not mean that we are not at ease with our situation, why should it, if we are made by nature ? We actually evolved to be ‘slaves’, and that is what we are—attachments to a greater entity. A scientific description would call us physiological units, cells of a living organism, functional automatons, which is much nicer than ‘slave’, isn’t it ? But it amounts to the same thing in reality, though not in our minds. It is only the odd awkward sod like myself that is doomed to feel a sense of permanent alienation within their own world, because of a wilful desire to know the truth for real. If I lay claim to anything in relation to this extravagance of mine, it is a strong dose of Attitude, not genius, that I own up to. Though it has to be said, that under the circumstances that I describe, it is stubborn attitude, not powerful intellect, which is called for. Thus rather than accepting the sublimation of truth to which so much of our human resources are devoted, so that we may feel good about things as they are, even though they are the very thing we declare we revile most of all, I seek to rock the boat by firing off loose ideas, just because they are true ! No wonder people like me, were formerly burnt at the stake. Given this usual infernal treatment under an absolute theocracy, it might occur to us to wonder, now that rabid atheism is freely promulgated, what all the fuss was about, since life remains the same as ever. We are ruled by an all powerful elite, war rages around the planet, poverty crushes the majority, and religion flourishes as never before. But herein lies the trick, we do not have atheism for real, because we do not have science for real, we have nothing for real, in fact. Hence I have been induced by resistance to authority, to create Atheist Science. Speaking thus reminds me of Douglas Adams’ talking pig served up at the restaurant at the end of the universe, which had been specially bred so that it could tell people that it wanted to be eaten, only to find that this made matters even worse. Most people, if persuaded, however momentarily, of the veracity of my ideas, would find the knowledge I impart horrific, and they would do anything to get away from the state of freedom I had unkindly forced them into, back to the comfort of ignorance and unwitting slavery. This is the natural reaction upon being faced with true knowledge of reality, knowing which is the very essence of freedom, which proves to be our worst nightmare, even though we do not know it. We evolved to be slaves ; there is one scientific fact that no one can possibly want to hear. But read my work, try to understand it, and be convinced. Like the talking pig, I have lived to reveal the truth, which everyone claims to want, but the telling of which, proves otherwise.

Truth changes nothing

On the other hand, people are pragmatic. As long as they love their lives, then telling people they are slaves, if they can no longer fend off the declaration due to the force of argument coming at them, is liable to make them embrace it. If being devoted to God when God is proven not to exist, makes one a slave, while belief in God nonetheless sustains a blissful state of contentment and supports a good life, then—‘so be it’—is the likely end point of people’s reaction to our seeking to impose real scientific knowledge upon our present collective state of being. “We are slaves.” they will cry, and rejoice in the fact. And if, one day, people learn to accept the truth and thus enter a truly scientific age, a pragmatic realism will have to be their new point of reference to this old idea of God, whereby they learn to understand that they stand relative to the superorganism as do their cousins in kind, the ant or the termite, and nothing can be done about, because that is who we are, it is the source of our wondrous gifts. However, there are some serious reasons why this state of freedom can never come to pass, which I cannot go into here, but which are more than amply covered in my general works, available on Scribd. So however catastrophic Atheist Science may sound for life as we know it, it does in fact change nothing of itself, so no one need fear it being true, too much. In the end, our atheist objective must be to possess true knowledge, which requires atheist science in some form or other, not this Darwinian travesty of science, that is nothing more than a sterilised representation of evolution, concocted to be safe for religion to be in the company of, as it has proven to be for over one and half centuries now. If ideas are viruses, then Atheist Science is a virus evolved to penetrate the shell of Darwinism, to kill it stone dead. And for the purposes of EvoWiki’s declared objective of countering Creationism, by furthering the promulgation of evolution as scientific fact, you may rest assured that if Darwinism dies, so will its complimentary antithesis, Creationism. Atheist Science is final, it can have no complimentary opposite delivering a knowledge controlling balance between two alternative pivots of observation, which allows false knowledge to rule in place of true knowledge. Atheist Science annihilates its opposite, as science meets anti-science, which is the Religious Science called Darwinism, to leave only the truth, as I lay it down for you in my general works, by means of reason, explanation, evidence galore, and unassailable argument. The only way to deal with the idea that humans are superorganisms, which is the key idea of Atheist Science, is to eradicate this idea, and make it taboo, the aftermath of which action, being what we endure now, under the impress of Darwinian evolution.

Inverted reality

This view of our world as being identical to those which preceded us, in respect to a total lack of freedom with regard to knowledge and expression, is in complete contradiction to the world, that we know, for an absolute fact, that we live in. The repercussions of this radical idea are considerable, as one might expect. Even though this realization changes nothing in reality, but merely destroys all our false ideas of what is. At the heart of this apparent inversion of reality we find the idea of overt and covert theocracy. The principle lying behind the process of overt versus covert authority mode, concerns the nature of knowledge, so that in philosophical terms we find ourselves faced with an implicit ‘theory of knowledge’. I am not an academic philosopher, and I care not a jot for academic formalities, and as such I do not concern myself with the deliberate construction of such a theory, it is there nonetheless, and those paid to fritter away lifetimes delving into such matters may like to formalise my informal idea of knowledge as a biological phenomenon.

Pivots of observation

In order to appreciate my view of reality then, it is necessary to take onboard the wholly unfamiliar point of view I adopt, from which to observe and understand reality. A point of perspective relative to reality concerns the ‘pivot of observation’ about which observations are interpreted, relative to the self. The logical alternatives consist of a self centred pivot of interpretation, or an abstract pivot based purely upon logic derived from material observations, that have no bias lode attached to them based upon assumptions about the nature of who and what we are within the panorama of existence, that we seek to understand. The classic example of these alternative pivots of observation, which serve as absolute alternative mediums of knowledge, are the geocentric versus the heliocentric models of the cosmos, where the former assumes the universe rotates about the earth, while the latter recognises that the earth moves about the sun. Our comparative modern interest, concerns the determination of the human animal’s biological nature. Here access to real knowledge is delivered by adopting the one true perspective that is at one with reality, as regards what human biological nature is. Naturally there is an alternative pivot which will provide as fulsome an alternative body of knowledge as did the false pivot of geocentrism, culminating in the magnificent work of the high priest of astronomy in the ancient world, Ptolemy. The alternative pivots of observation for producing a model of human nature, are a precise analogue of the ancient case noted, where bias is fixed on our idea of ourselves, as opposed to our material place in reality. Thus we have two possible pivots of observation, the accepted pivot, that of the Individual, which is the modern biological equivalent to that of geocentrism in ancient astronomy. And the true biological pivot of observation regarding the nature of the human animal, that of the Superorganism, which is equivalent to the heliocentric counterpoint in ancient astronomy.

The all pervasive subversion of knowledge

These alternative pivots of observation are absolutes, and they can be translated into various dualistic alternatives. It is this power of translation determined by the initial point of observation of reality, that allows our whole language to be subverted spontaneously, by the straightforward use of our power of speech, that we are compelled to engage in by virtue of our physiological form, the product of which is accumulated over time as culture, without any real conscious effort being made to enhance this process of false knowledge creation, by any individuals. Who, on the contrary, are under the control of this creative linguistic process, not the other way around, as we are programmed to believe. So that we carry the false logic of existence imbued into us subliminally, merely through the act of learning to speak. This is how a linguistic programme organises us into building superorganic physiology, without ourselves having any real idea of this state of affairs, other than that which is delivered to us in the mythical form of religion, which recognises the reality of the superorganism intuitively, and calls it ‘God’, and teaches us all we need to know about the superorganism indirectly, in order that we may serve it faithfully, as we do. Thus we may juxtapose the alternatives of ‘religion’ and ‘science’, and, as with geocentrism versus heliocentrism, or with regard to the individual versus the superorganism, where only one of the two alternatives can be valid, the same principle applies with respect to the alternatives of science or religion, where science and religion stand for two distinct ways of knowing reality. Thus if we did have science in our world, if Darwinism were science that is, then religion would not, could not, exist. These are fundamental philosophical principles, which lie at the core of what this EvoWiki site purports to promote, namely the idea that evolution is fact, and Creationism is therefore fiction. The trouble is, as can be seen from this discussion, this so called scientific site is a defender of the wrong pivot of observation. For it accepts that Darwinism is science, which it cannot be, because Darwin made the person the human animal. Whereas any true science of humanity must recognise that individuals do not exist as ends in themselves, and the true human animal is the living superorganism, made by nature, what we know in general terms as ‘society’, and what religion calls ‘God’. The idea of the social organism was well known in Darwin’s day, but you would never know it from his mountain of work. This critical omission is no error, nor is it conspiracy, it is the ongoing process of linguistically fuelled creation, producing and maintaining the being of the living human superorganism.

Part II

Does evolution conflict with religion and morality ?

This subject appears on this site, and a passage is taken from my work within the posting, to indicate the atheist category of ‘non-moral realist’. Having outlined some of the general principles of my philosophy of science, I now intend to address this posting specifically.

Gatekeepers

To begin with, I find this question appallingly religious in its tone, and thoroughly anti science. EvoWiki is looking very much like everything else that I have ever seen, decidedly suspicious that is, pretending to be a friend to science, while in reality being anything but, and instead taking up space where real science should be. This is the Gatekeeper Effect, where instead of the void of ignorance, the powers that be in society organise knowledge so as to make knowledge itself the vehicle of ignorance, because, by positively knowing something that is false, we do not really ask what is real. This effect is subliminal, individuals might be thought of as inflicting it upon themselves unwittingly ; there is no conspiracy involved here, but then, since there is no such thing as an individual, how could there be any such thing as a conspiracy, and what else would we expect programmed individual behaviour to achieve, other than a deception of the self ? Filling the void where true knowledge should be, with knowledge pretending to be antithetical to the religion which rules our world, by pretending to be true knowledge of a different kind, being yet drawn from the same false pivot of observation as that informing religious dogma, is the process of placing Gatekeepers to protect the linguistic identity programme, that is the linguistic genome of the superorganism, that must be defended at all cost. This defence is not hard for nature to achieve, our somatic form evolved to express this purpose.

Darwinism is not evolution, it is religion

We must understand that Darwinism has nothing to do with the reality of evolution, just as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system based upon it, had nothing to do with the real motion of the cosmos which it pretended to describe. Darwinism then, is not synonymous with evolution, as implied by this EvoWiki site. By setting up the protagonists debating the topic that would reveal what human nature really is, in the shape of two false opposites, Darwinism versus Creationism, both derived from the same false pivot of observation with regard to human nature—that of the individual as an end in themselves—the person as the human animal that is, the absolute theocracy controls knowledge in a scientific age. As can be seen by the total failure of science to tell us anything significant about what humans are, while religion is vastly more powerful in our world now, than it has ever been, anywhere, at any time in the past. Telling us we are animals evolved from an anthropoid base is as close to nothing as science could ever hope to get, in terms of a revelation about human nature, it says nothing about what kind of animals we are, which is precisely why this scientifically sterile revelation has been promoted as the be all and end of self knowledge, courtesy of science. Religion meanwhile, has generated one of the most powerful nations on earth, from nothing more substantial than religious myth, and this in a modern era when the norm is for nations of immense power, to sink into the oblivion subduction under the banner of larger corporate masses. These two processes of emergence and subduction in social organisation, are directly related to one another, physiologically.

Overt versus covert authority

It may be worth noting that the general principles of knowledge control indicated here, where an absolute authority shifts from overt to covert mode, is perfectly well known within history. A poetic description of this social power mechanism, appears in Aesop’s fable about the struggle between the sun and the wind, to see who is most powerful. In overt power mode, the wind blows a man to get him to remove his coat, whereupon the man resists ; while in covert power mode, the sun burns down, causing the man to cooperate by removing his coat of his own freewill. Thus people fight religion and get burnt at the stake, and fight harder. So the theocracy, unable to resist the flood of scientific knowledge inspiring such rebellion any longer, changes tack. It produces its own version of the key science that would be fatal to it, an evolutionary science in the guise of Darwinism. Liberated by free access to genuine scientific knowledge of the most controversial kind, people then settle into a rather more confused state of peace, satisfied in the main that they are no longer being oppressed, they become complicit in their own covert oppression, by laying claim to the monstrous imposition, a response largely due to the continuing vigour of absurd religion, which provokes Darwinists to become fanatical when faced with religion, typified in Creationism, and anything not familiar to them, such as the truth, such as the idea that humans are superorganisms, that is. Thus a site like EvoWiki is not what it appears to be, but rather the exact opposite of what its creators think it is. This site promotes slave obedience to religion, unbeknownst to those who may call themselves atheists, and who take the part of science activists. The theocracy could ask for nothing more, and so the superorganism is happy ; and we remain blissfully content, in our ignorance too. All is well, and as nature intended it should be. This state of passive satisfaction oozes from the self professed ‘weak agnostic’ standpoint, of the man who posted the topic including a quote from my atheism. Needless to say, I do not like it. This man then broaches another important topic, the nature of God, and in doing so he gives his all to religion. Never pausing for a moment to contradict the blanket of ignorance cast over us, by the religious representation of God as the creator of the universe. He takes this definition at face value, having no notion of denying its validity. After all, we may suppose, if religious people say they consider God to be the creator of the universe, then what can we deniers of such an idea do, but accept the proposition and deal with it ? How can we begin by denying the definition, surely the definition is self sustaining, self defining, and must be dealt with as it is ? Such is the approach of this spokesperson who has been able to contribute work to this science friendly site !

Positive atheism

This is where a truly positive atheism—Atheist Science—comes into its own by accepting religion as wholly natural, and entirely functional. This allows us to explain belief in God, and all that goes with that belief, and thus to show what God is. And thereby we prove that ‘God’ does not exist, by showing that what is called ‘God’ in religious mythology, is in reality the human superorganism. Thus the idea of God as creator of all reality is shown to be a mere rhetorical device of the myth makers, perfectly reasonable in the context of religion, but absolutely nothing to do with the subject as presented by the man we are discussing here. In order to equate God with the creation of the universe in any meaningful sense, it is necessary to know what the ‘universe’ is, and no one knows that. So the equation is pure fancy, playing with ideas. In proving that God does not exist we are not required to show how the universe was created, the two things, God and the universe, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one another, in reality. We only need to show what the idea of God is, for ‘God’ is nothing but an idea, and this is easily done.

The nature of language

Atheist Science sits upon the pivot of corporate nature, which recognises that the human animal is a superorganism, and the individual does not exist in the usual sense they are taken to exist, as ends in themselves. The superorganism is the only possible embodiment of the individual, as taken in this usual sense, as an end in itself. This Atheist Science revelation radically transforms the explanation of all aspects of our experience of existence. The central dynamic of this act of transformation concerns the way we understand the nature of language. No longer is language the tool of personal expression, but on the contrary, it is more like the flow of information within the nervous tissue of our somatic bodies, whereby all linguistic expression becomes part of an information programme controlling and organising individual activity, to create the being of the superorganism. Thus the meanings that we know, become triggers that we are entirely oblivious to, except in so far as people have tried to deal with subliminal social influences in a scientific manner, in order to explain group action and social order, which hints at this subliminal nature of linguistic programming, lying underneath our conscious processes. Such ideas are reaching along the right lines, but without the basic conception of the superorganism as a point of reference for their explanations, they can do no more than divine certain ‘magical’ influences, which they have no hope of explaining in any real, consistent manner. This failure is of course, as it is meant to be. Language exists to create the human animal, the superorganism, and the essence of this creative process is the projection of social authority into the social space occupied by individuals, which act of projection, spontaneously creates social structure, superorganic physiology that is. Over time, this flux of linguistically generated authority accretes, and we call the result of this accretion, things like ‘society’, and ‘culture’. Except of course we do not call it anything, because we are oblivious to this process as such, it is the linguistic programme that delivers our awareness of these things to us, in this personalised form of language that we understand the meaning of, because we relate to that meaning personally.

Atheist : non-moral realist

It is wonderful to find myself inspiring a definition of atheism, and as such this entry in EvoWiki is the only comment on my work that I have ever seen. It calls for a response, that I am delighted to provide. As an atheist living in an absolute theocracy, I must point out that this definition is constructed using the logic of religion, under which constraints we all live, due to the interpretative power of the false pivot of observation described above. It is a familiar fact that atheism is a negative definition of a view of reality, defined by its opposite, religion. So that an ‘atheist’ is one who denies God. By creating an atheist philosophy based on the scientific method, which treats religion as a positive, natural phenomenon, atheism itself becomes positive, by explaining why religion exists. Namely because religion mediates the reality of the superorganism to the individual units of superorganic being—‘sentient bricks’—via a linguistic information flux that belongs to the superorganism, not to the people who speak, and comprehend. Note the supreme English voice of atheism, Richard Dawkins, is happy to remain entrenched within the negative mode created for us by the high priests of knowledge, he being one of them. He denounces religion as a flawed outlook, that we individuals, existing as ends in ourselves, do not need, and should rise above. His atheism is perfectly formed to protect religion from annihilation by true knowledge, borne of scientific insight, because he treats religion as an unnatural aberration, a flaw that it is within the power of people, who exist to serve themselves, to eradicate. This attitude is anathema to science, it is pure religious priestcraft, serving to manage knowledge, and hence social power, and thus to serve the being of the superorganism, which we, unknowingly, call ‘God’. How can science ever justify treating a normal, ongoing state of existence, the existence of religion that is, as a flaw ! The idea is a total denial of everything science stands for, and Dawkins operates this way because he, as a professional scientist, performs the duties he is trained for, by rendering science into a political mould.

In the formulation of this EvoWiki definition, we see the continuation of this natural, religion affiliated bias, whereby I am denominated ‘non-moral’ and ‘realist’. Calling me ‘non-moral’ obviously defers to traditional religious bias ; but the ‘realist’ denomination is less obviously inspired by the all pervasive, subliminal bias of our language, which always directs our thoughts towards a sense of self being, self consciousness, and freewill. Thus I am categorized as a person who wants to take reality at face value, adding no metaphysical interpretation to what is observed. Here ‘realist’ can be seen as another mode of denying what is normally assumed by society. This entry appears to leave it to me to speak for myself, except for the fact that the title places me within a slot that tells readers how they should think of my ideas, namely as an illustration of the subtitle to this definition of atheism. I now offer a response to this terminology, respecting a characterisation of my atheism as indicative of a ‘non-moral realist’ idea of existence. A search for ‘non-moral realist’ on Wikipedia gives 231 results, that point towards this definition being drawn from academic philosophy, which I do not care to delve into. I will just offer a response to my being used as an example of this philosophically asserted, nuance of atheist reasoning.

Without a reference all I can say offhand, is that this quote looks like some earlier work, the posting itself is dated 2003 and may be quoting from the first item I posted to Scribd. I have developed the central theme of my reasoning and taken to calling my atheist philosophy, Atheist Science, as noted above, because I deem that which is called ‘science’ in a society that I call an absolute theocracy, amounts to Religious Science, Darwinism being the classic case in point. I have also started emphasising the idea of Linguistic Force as the biosocial force creating all superorganic form. It is certain that with the realisation that the human animal is a superorganism, comes the corollary that the individual does not exist, so that all social activity becomes purely functional. Just as we do not call eating ‘good’ and defecating ‘evil’, so a true science of sociology would not lend support to the denomination of medicine or lawmaking as ‘good’, and warfare or murder as ‘evil’. It would recognise that both of these activities are social phenomenon, only being real in terms of their relationship to the living superorganism. How individuals feel about these various behaviours would be seen as utterly irrelevant to what they are. Thus, science applied to human society can only be ‘non-moral’. It is therefore absurd to define me as a non-moral atheist, I should simply be called a scientific atheist, that is an atheist who seeks to make atheism a precondition of science, because religion precludes the existence of science, of authority vested in nature as a process that is, as it surely as it invokes the possibility of atheism.

Realism

As for this ‘realist’ business, what exactly does it mean ? I have indicated the carriage of a subliminal bias lode, existing within the mode of expression found in this passage we are examining now, inducing a sense of myself as a source of authority for my ideas, rather than what I intend to be, which is a source of information about reality, where reality is the sole authority in existence, which I am mediating. All I can say further then, is what ‘realist’ should mean, in terms of the characterisation of an idea of existence. And that is, that what the realist thinker in question believes, should be confined to things which are known to be ‘real’ in a tangible and demonstrable sense, such as the idea that human animals are superorganisms. In terms of knowledge, there is only one way of knowing what is real, and that is via the application of the scientific method. I define science as the product of applying the scientific method, not the act of application. So that we may say that science is the ‘means by which reality is known’, because the success of the scientific method has shown that science is the sole means of creating coherent, all encompassing, descriptive bodies of knowledge about reality, that are affirmed by reference to reality as the sole arbiter of what is real. My interpreter indicates that he does not mean ‘realist’ to equate to ‘one who only advocates knowledge that is scientifically, demonstrably valid’, since he says it cannot be empirically proven that God does not exist, while it is clear that once we have free access to true knowledge, nothing could be easier. Clearly the only ‘realist’ position that anyone can adopt in respect to humans, is to regard them as exactly what I say they are, mammalian superorganisms. This is why, as a life long, passionate atheist, I have settled upon this view, and in this respect, I am most definitely a ‘realist’. The fact that we are linguistic creatures proves that we are a superorganic species, as surely as the physiology of any other animal indicates its prime nature too, as in a bird and its wings, making it aerial in nature ; or a fish and its fins making it aquatic. Our linguistic physiology is an adaptation of life that creates a state of total immersion within a social environment, produced by the existence of language itself. In summation then, we could put the two things together. The fact that my Atheist Science is based upon a sociological organicism which says that humans are superorganisms, which means that there is indeed no morality, where this knowledge is in perfect accord with reality, could justify the agnomen ‘non-moral realist’, if you like.

Morality

The above discussion may raise questions concerning my own morality, does Atheist Science equate to a mandate for immorality ? The answer is no, it does not. I am as morally animated as anyone else, being so is an aspect of human social nature, it is inescapable. Atheist Science is true science, it gives us insight into reality, but that does not change the reality of our place within the scheme of existence. Morality is structural. Notable philosophers of the ancient world declared that the earth was not rotating, because if it were then trees and buildings would be loosed from their foundations. They were wrong, they failed to recognise a shift between the domains of existence to which their ideas were being applied. They required a scientific outlook, which they had no interest in attaining in this most important regard, because the religion of their day forbade the discovery of this true astronomical knowledge, just as the religion of today forbids our attainment of true biological knowledge. So we have Darwinism instead, as they had Ptolemaic astronomy, to make us feel as if we are free.

Semantic closure

The knowledge that the human animal is a superorganism has major ramifications for our understanding of reality, but that changes nothing in terms of our interaction with reality. The idea of ‘semantic closure’ is helpful here, it relates to the pattern of information creating integral forms. Human superorganic form is created by linguistic force, which produces a linguistic identity programme that organises individuals into creating superorganic physiology. We experience this organising linguistic programme intimately, in such linguistic identity routines as ‘morals’. We recognise the moral impetus, but we do not know this is the expression of an underlying linguistic force ; just as we feel the apple falling on our heads, but, before Newton, we knew nothing of the gravitational force that delivered its impact. We evolved to be sensitive to linguistic force, which arises from the evolved linguistic physiology of our somatic bodies. Morals therefore, like ourselves, or like God, do not really exist, as such, morals only exist as an aspect of an integral form, that of the superorganism. We may note that the erstwhile philosopher whose page we are discussing now, indicates that morals are a progressive aspect of humanity’s development over time, so that morals become ever more perfect ! If only. We could expect nothing more trivial from a Sunday school lecture, this is pure religious bias at its worst, although it is cast in the guise of a secular discussion. If morality can be said to of become more sophisticated, elaborate and complex, this is an aspect of its function within the identity programme delivering superorganic physiology, which has become increasingly complex over time, as the superorganism has grown ever more massive by consuming more of the human biomass of the planet, now entirely consumed, the biomass needs further integration, and that is where moral sophistication, generated by the pressure of linguistic force, comes into its own. Like our modern view of the cosmos then, Atheist Science allows us to take an alien-like view of our position in reality, to look down upon ourselves from an astral plain, so to speak, and to adopt the view of an alien who is not part of the society to which we belong. This gives us two contrasting views of reality, the personal, false view of experience, and the abstract, true view of reality. Because universities are part of the exoskeletal physiology, they exist to manage the linguistic identity programme, so they teach a model of reality in keeping with the false view of familiar experience, while suppressing the true scientific view. Sociologists teach their helpless students that it is logically impossible for a person to be outside the society they live within. They are being obtusely small-minded ; that is after all their job, within the superorganic form.

The fact that morality is variable between societies, and ebbs and flows within a society, as with the shift in attitude towards sexuality in recent times, indicates that morals are not absolute values. The institution of the idea of universal human rights is an expression of this functional aspect of linguistic force, related to the coming era of a global superorganism, ever more consolidated. My morality is, like my philosophy, unconventional. I value science as the sole source of real knowledge, above all else. I regard religion as the most heinous thing known to humanity. I would like to see a world in which religion is outlawed and its practice treated as a terrible evil. Such high-minded morality is part of the closed semantic system that I wish to be part of, it is not a real evaluation of what religion is, only science can give us that, Atheist Science that is. The same logic that we have just stated in relation to morals, applies across the full range of social behaviours. Nothing is what it is made out to be by our system of ‘values’. Everything takes on a functional aspect under scientific interpretation, as noted regarding the appearance of the Nazis in the passage of mine that has been quoted. The emergence of the Nazis was an essential reaction within the biomass, to protect the Jews, the real core of superorganic being, the true embodiment of the master race that the Nazis pretended to be. The current economic crisis arising from the extravagant behaviour of the banking sector, is part of a highly positive physiological activity, allowing societies like that of Greece to be bludgeoned into conformity with the Capitalist programme, that is generating the rigorously uniform order of global superorganic being. This is the superorganism integrating itself. Without such ‘catastrophes’ generating major change, how could the human animal self-organise itself ? It could not. Our feelings in these matters are of no consequence whatsoever, other than as functional aspects of the process of integration, and we have absolutely no means of doing anything other than acting as history portrays us to ourselves, in hindsight. We have no conscious control over these processes. As the vote of the Greek parliament yesterday, proves. A vote in a parliament is surely the most proactive act any humans can ever engage in, yet this vote was as predetermined and unwilled as any act could be.

Concluding remarks

Looking at Wikipedia to try and find this item after being shown it by someone else, before its true location on EvoWiki was pointed out, I noticed an entry on positive and negative atheism, which did not include a notice of my Atheist Science, which I regard as the supreme expression of positive atheism. Indeed, I would say it is the first, and only real meaning that positive atheism can have. It would be presumptuous I suppose for me to include myself in this section however, and I do not want presumptuousness to become a habit. Another topic I have delved into that had a page devoted to it, concerned the status of religious atheists, What do you call a Jew who is an atheist ? they asked. The answer was “A Jew”. Obviously it is not possible to be a Jew and an atheist, if that is, ‘atheist’ has any real meaning. And therein lies the catch, meaning is manipulated at a subliminal level, based on ideas such as the integrity of the individual as an end in themselves, ideas which are never declared. Hence the subliminality of the message carried by language, as an expression of the projected authority spoken about above, projected from our evolved linguistic physiology that is. Here again we find a reason why the genuine sense in which atheism can be positive, can only pertain where atheism is made the basis of science, from whence a purely abstract, unbiased analysis of human nature can be derived, where the only bias is the assumption that there is no God, which of course is not bias at all, as long as we understand that science proves God does not exist by showing that God is the superorganism.

The idea of semantic closure is taken from an essay called Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems by Luis Rocha, 1998, which appears in Evolutionary Systems by Vijver et. al. All material of my own making, posted to the internet by me, has, up to this point, been posted to Scribd.

Thanks are due to Lee Cooper, an undergraduate at Manchester University, for directing my attention to the entry on EvoWiki.

Howard Hill,

England,

Tuesday, 05 July 2011.