NationStates Jolt Archive

"YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF," that's the message from Theo Hobson in the 'Face to Faith' column of today's Grauniad.

His basic premise is that mankind is bad to the bone and that's the core message of Christian belief. He also takes time for an extended swipe at so-called 'new age' philosophies, which he likens to cheap consumerism.

"Every form of new age therapy will tell you the same flattering half-truth: you are special, you are deep ... there is an obvious overlapy between holistic spirituality and a consumerist culture: buy this because you're worth it. Discover new depths to your personality by taking a holiday in Turkey," he sneers.

That said, he never defines what 'new age' is? Is he talking about the Raelians? The tree-huggers? The NLP-practitioners? Those who use cognitive-based therapy? Believers in shamanism or magick? What?

Anywho, Hobson belives that the "celebration of the self" is rooted in the widely held belief that humanity is naturally good. Adding that this rise in 'new age' beliefs puts the theory of secularisation in doubt owing to the rise in spirituality, he says that 'new ageism' helps account for the decline in church attendance.

I presume he means in the UK only - it's my understanding that the US has been seeing an increasing trend toward religosity in recent years (but hey, feel free to correct me if you want). He grants, reluctantly, some credit to the 'new age' ... "not entirely to be rubbished," he muses. Hobson rightly points to emphasis the 'new age' puts on developing mental and physical health, respect for others and the freedom of the individual to follow his or her destinty. He adds that the 'new age' is to be much credited for shaking of the "dead hand of traditional dogma."

But the 'new age' is fundamentally false regardless of all its virtues, Hobson argues. "In reality we are not naturally good. There is something wrong with us, deep down. There is a bias towards evil," he asserts and offers the antics of those cheeky chappies Hitler and Hindley (notorious UK child-serial killer) as proof. "Humanity has not been on its best behaviour this past century," Hobson laments.

And Hobson knows what is the source of our deep-down, deep routed evil. It's sex. The natural desire of man and woman (or, I guess, for that matter, man and man, woman and woman, man and horse) to rub uglies is naturally evil. "In reality [Freud] knew that sexuality was worthy of fear. Human civilisation, he said, is a constant struggle against the anarchy of natural desire. He would be horrified by the flippancy with which we treat sexuality today, as if it's harmless fun," declares an aghast Hobson. "The lie that are natural desires are healthy has become the orthodoxy."

And the only way to overcome our wicked little innerselves? Sack our girlfriends, invest in big padded mittens and stop watching interweb porn? No. We need to turn to Christianity for it, and only it, "is capable of being utterly realistic about our natural depravity, without pessimism. It allows us ... to proclaim our frailty and shame as good news."

So there you have it, you dirty, wicked, little horn-dogs. Sex is the root of all evil and can lead only to depravity. And that's the Good News!

With that thought it mind, enjoy your Saturday night and don't do anything to imperil your mortal soul. Remember, you're supposed to be ashamed of yourselves, and that's even before you've had eight pints, a curry and a night of casual sex.

Have a great evening,

CDA

Cute Dangerous Animals

Note: Theo Hobson is the author of Anarchy, Church and Utopia. You can read the original article from the Grauniad at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1749614,00.html

That's a nasty looking 'sinful nature' you've got there... what? You don't know about 'sinful nature'? Oh yes, well established it is. Scientists know about it, and everything. I'm afraid it's going to cause you nothing but pain. What's that... you feel a little woozy? Never mind, I have some "Protestant Brand" medicine here, made from the natural oils of genuine snakes..."

If Jesus truly died for our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?

:)

Personally, I can't see what's so evil when two (or more) people want to share a little :fluffle:

:p

If Jesus truly died for our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?


Brilliant! :D

"Humanity - good hearted or bad to the bone?"

Yes. :)

Brilliant! :D
I can't take all the credit. Paraphrased from Jules Feiffer.

If Jesus truly died for our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?


SUPPORT OUR SAVIOR! COMMIT A SIN!

I think people are inherantly good, but can be negatively shaped by soceity. People aren't good all the time, but in an ideal soceity, they could be mostly good. Unfortunately, much of our current culture in North America is based around fear and parnoi, accounting for high crimes rates and negative behavior. All people need is a little respect and a little help realising their potential and abilities. That can only be done under certain conditions, but it's not impossible.

N.B.: Exceptions are made for people suffering from extreme mental illnesses or personality disorders, such as anti-social personality disorder. Such people shouldn't be seen as "evil," as they are not responsible for their behavior, but don't always do the "right" or "good" thing.

SUPPORT OUR SAVIOR! COMMIT A SIN!


I'm With Ya Brother!!! I'm Off To Town To Get Some Ale And Whores!!!

Huzzah!!!

I think people are inherantly good, but can be negatively shaped by soceity.


I believe people are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Saying there is 'good' and 'bad' implies a fixed standard that all can adhere to, which I guess is one of the points of organised religion.

For example, it's widely regarded in modern western society as 'bad' to harbour any thoughts of a sexual nature about those under the age of 16. But in the Middle Ages people, who we would regard as children, were routinely married off and gave birth long before the age of 16.

Also, I believe the theory of evolution most adequately explains our origins. With that background - given that we developed from some monkey-like species, how can we be 'good' or 'evil'? Unless all primates are inherently evil too ?! :eek:

Watch out for the attack of the uber-evil chimps! They're everywhere!

I believe people are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Saying there is 'good' and 'bad' implies a fixed standard that all can adhere to, which I guess is one of the points of organised religion.

For example, it's widely regarded in modern western society as 'bad' to harbour any thoughts of a sexual nature about those under the age of 16. But in the Middle Ages people, who we would regard as children, were routinely married off and gave birth long before the age of 16.

Also, I believe the theory of evolution most adequately explains our origins. With that background - given that we developed from some monkey-like species, how can we be 'good' or 'evil'? Unless all primates are inherently evil too ?! :eek:

Watch out for the attack of the uber-evil chimps! They're everywhere!

Touché. I can't compete with that one. I'm an evolutionist too, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I think that every person has the capacity to adhere to laws and be functioning members of society. Of course people are always going to be debated over the meaning of "good." But to me it means that people try their best to reach their potentials and avoid hearting others. And I think people can live up to that standard of "good," even if other standards of "good" are harder to live up to.
And, as a footnote, chimps are inherently good. I read about a study in which babies and chimpanzees were put in situations where they could be altruistic and help others (eg: an adult human drops a block and pretends to search for it). The chimps helped out the humans (as did the babies) in the simpler excercises, but struggled when more complex thought was required.

To save humanity we must destroy the seals.

To save humanity we must destroy the seals.

If by humanity you mean Newfies, then, yes.

To save humanity we must destroy the seals.

Especially the baby ones. They're the biggest threat.

this guys just pissed because he can't get any (not that I can talk I'm spending Saturday night in with my computer)

I'm an evolutionist too, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I think that every person has the capacity to adhere to laws and be functioning members of society. Of course people are always going to be debated over the meaning of "good." But to me it means that people try their best to reach their potentials and avoid hearting others. And I think people can live up to that standard of "good," even if other standards of "good" are harder to live up to.

Fair enough.

I find Hobson's basic premise particularly objectionable tho. There is nothing inherently evil about humanity. There are those of us who make choices to be evil and those of us who make choices to be good. And then there are those who either don't know any better or can't be held reponsible for their actions.

None of which has anything to do with sex. I find Hobson's attempt to put sex at the root of evil as, well, ridiculous. His theory is that human beings are weak primal beings and desire for sex is either the cause or manifestation of evil. But why doesn't that apply to other primal aspects of humanity too? Like, for example, the primal desire to breathe, drink water or eat? Watch out folks, eating apples is mark of Satan (hmm, where've we heard that before?)

I was quite intrigued by your footnote on chimps. That really quite changes my mind on my earlier post. Seems like strong indicative evidence that we are inherently 'good,' or at least, socially minded and altruistic. The implication of that, for Hobson's thesis, is quite startling.

If

(1) the chimp experiment shows that altruism is inherent to chimps/humans,
(2) and by 'inherent' we mean 'primal'
(3) and we use 'altruistic' as one manifestation of 'goodness'
(4) and anything primal is 'evil' according to Hobson
(5) then 'good' is 'evil'

which is absurd.

"Terrorist Cakes"

Fantastic name, by the way :p

this guys just pissed because he can't get any (not that I can talk I'm spending Saturday night in with my computer)


Yeah, me too :(

Personally, I'd much prefer to be out on the town, dressed in my uber-secksay shirt, jeans and pointy boots looking for a bit of wickedness and depravity.

But I sold my soul to the bank manager in return for an education. I'm not sure that I got a good deal.

Bloody student loan repayments.

You're all evil! Now listen to what I say!

"Terrorist Cakes"

Fantastic name, by the way :p

Why, thank you. Yours isn't bad either.

Mankind is not inherently evil. Except Belgians. Fucking bastards! :mad:

;)

Humans are the greatest speices on the planet. We're the only ones that have charity organisations. We also at least try to end our wars in a peaceful manner with treaties and stuff instead of killing all of our enemies. Other speices that live in groups, such as ants, wipe out enitre colonies of their opppenents. Just because we have better weopons than they do doesn't make them better. Don't blame us for being smarter and being able to use tools. Yes we dammage teh enviroment but we're new at the care taking role. It's only been 100 years since the industrial revolution, which is nothing in the span of the universe. Show me another self aware speices that is better than us. In the mean time we've got a nice galaxy for the taking!

Mankind is not inherently evil. Except Belgians. Fucking bastards! :mad:

;)

Brilliant!:p

We're the only ones that have charity organisations.
Well there is the... Hahah of course... I've said to much. *leaves*

Humanity is like it is for a reason. Namely, to survive in tribal communities. We don't evolve over centuries, or even millennia - things evolve over millions of years. Morals are a part of our genetic makeup, as are core instincts that go against "morals."

Instincts are for the self. Life is a competition to get nookie. Not exactly a scientifically detailed explanation, but it works. However, humans can't be individual beings, we need to survive together as a race, and so the suppression of these selfish instincts are what constitutes morals.

The problem in recent times, and I mean recent as in, from the start of the 20th century - recent in terms of the human race - is that as our society grows larger and more complicated, humans become more and more insecure, feeling as though they need to fit into a larger and larger society to survive. Morals, going against basic instinctual principles, are overtaking selfish human nature to the point at which a lot of components of human interactions in society are breaking down.

It's why men mostly go for looks, and women mostly go for personality (note the mostly's). Men's instincts need to know that a woman is going to be a good childbearer, whilst women are more attracted for the man who is at the top of the status chain - the one who doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of him; the confident one. He's the one who, in tribal society, is most likely to be the best hunter for the group, and the best father, so the two can raise the best children for the future of the human race.

And an over moralistic and insecure society telling itself that our basic instincts are in contrast with morals doesn't forebode well.

Don't blame us for being smarter and being able to use tools. Yes we dammage teh enviroment but we're new at the care taking role. It's only been 100 years since the industrial revolution, which is nothing in the span of the universe. Show me another self aware speices that is better than us. In the mean time we've got a nice galaxy for the taking!

Dolphins. Chimpanzees. They're the ones most commonly spoke about.

And there isn't a "caretaking role" in the animal kingdom. It's not like the lion dons orange overalls and gets out a mop on Tuesdays, to wipe up all the shit the zebras left on the savannah last week. We've always had to look after the land we live on, but now we've gotten so big, the ones that actually care about the land and the wellbeing of the planet can't reach everywhere.

And nobody's blaming the human race, because the only race capable of doing any blaming is the human one. The only thing we have to answer to on a daily basis is ourselves, regardless of whether you believe in God or not. And we can't answer to ourselves if we've spiralled into our own destruction.

I believe people are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Saying there is 'good' and 'bad' implies a fixed standard that all can adhere to, which I guess is one of the points of organised religion.

For example, it's widely regarded in modern western society as 'bad' to harbour any thoughts of a sexual nature about those under the age of 16. But in the Middle Ages people, who we would regard as children, were routinely married off and gave birth long before the age of 16.

Also, I believe the theory of evolution most adequately explains our origins. With that background - given that we developed from some monkey-like species, how can we be 'good' or 'evil'? Unless all primates are inherently evil too ?! :eek:

Watch out for the attack of the uber-evil chimps! They're everywhere!

First of all, can you think of a culture that ever glorified surrender or retreat from the field of battle?

More importantly, however, you are confusing morality with practical anthropology. Certainly there were times where societies defined having sex with a fourteen year-old girl as good and others as bad, but that in itself says nothing about whether or not a society should define having sex with a fourteen year-old girl as good or bad. You are in effect making an unwarranted leap from saying that because two cultures hold contradictory moral beliefs that there are no moral beliefs, because in order to make that leap you also have to assume the absurd: that there is no clear-cut means of determining whether one set of values is superior to another set. By this logic, men in the Sudan are as equally right for cutting off their little girl's clitoris' as we are for condemning such a practice because there is no means of determining which is the superior value to hold, which, again, is an absurdity.

Finally, I would say you also err in saying that absolutist is necessarily religious. Aristotle and Kant both come up with staunchly absolutist moral systems, yet they don't derive them from religious precepts; in fact, many people use Kant and Aristotle to justify religious precepts themselves.

As for the main question about the nature of man, I would reply that man's innate inclination is toward good (apparently, the author of the text wasn't very knowledgeable about Christianity, since I'm lifting that language from no less a Christian than Thomas Aquinas). I say this because it seems as if man's natural end is happiness, and both experience and reason suggest that evil doesn't lead to happiness so much as it destroys the possibility of happiness. Because man wouldn't have an end that he couldn't reach, nor would a just God allow such a condition, he must therefore have a natural inclination toward the good that allows that happiness. The problem, however, is that knowledge of the good requires correct reasoned judgments, and man is often mistaken about what will make him happy. As such, man's problem isn't that he's evil, just that he's ignorant of the Good.