The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 3)

To further extend my analogy of a computer, let us consider the nature of the data present both in a computer and in a human being as it relates to anomalies of nature, such as genetic mutations (an individual with Down Syndrome for instance). A question to ask is, "How can we account for such anomalies when we consider the nature of human beings as we perceive them a priori?" It would seem that an overwhelming majority of individuals who were asked to describe a human being would not, at least initially, describe the figure of an individual with Down Syndrome (or any other chromosomal anomaly). The a priori judgment that individuals with chromosomal anomalies do not initially fit our perception of a human being, in part due to their significant minority in comparison to the rest of the world, seems like a fair observation.

In a broad sense, it would seem that every being is composed of data, though at different levels. We frequently are caught up in examining the difference between humans and other non-humans, in terms of thought processes and instinct; though all beings exist in a hierarchical system (as dictated by evolution), and are by nature encoded to act and function in such a way. We can consider Social Dominance Theory to further examine and understand the nature of this system.

"Social Dominance Theory begins with the basic observation that all human societies tend to be structured as systems of group-based social hierarchies. At the very minimum, this hierarchical social structure consists of one or a small number of dominant and hegemonic groups at the top and one or a number of subordinate groups at the bottom (Sidanius, 31)."

While the theory pertains primarily to human social constructs, it is easy to imagine this concept being adapted in such a way that we may examine alternative species in relative comparison to our own. Perhaps most relevant to discussion of the similarities between human beings and lesser animals is an issue of how violence plays a vital role in the formation of beliefs, group structures, and hierarchy in general.

"Systematic terror (the use of violence or threats of violence disproportionately directed against subordinates) functions to maintain expropriative relationships between dominants and subordinates and enforce the continued deference of subordinates toward dominants (Sidanius, 41)."

As one may examine, there is little difference (as observations can tell us) between human beings and animals in terms of how power and control is kept. Though, it may be obvious that humans have adapted in such a way that "systematic terror" may be subtler; it still exists and is frequently used in one form or another. The very nature of the police department, for example, is in part to invoke fear into otherwise animalistic and anarchist human beings so they do not act out in morally and ethically apprehensible ways. The importance of understanding social dominance and hierarchy is to allow a realization that the similarities between humans and lesser animals are undeniably close when one removes the idea that humans are "superior" (in that, their actions differ due to "mental" attributes).

In direct relation to chromosomal "anomalies" as discussed earlier, it would appear that, given the nature of the hierarchical system we exist within, any "anomaly" in this system is not truly an anomaly (though it may appear to be at first glance); but simply encoded into the nature of the system in such a way that it is merely a minority. It would appear that, over time, all anomalies would simply come to be viewed as minorities as they find a place in new or adapted physical theories.

Throughout the ages of scientific exploration, human beings are only now beginning to understand the nature of the body; though, in ways that our ancestors may have never been able to dream of or even fantasize about in their imaginations. As time continues, the nature of the physical body is slowly explaining the nature of the "mind" as it has been viewed for millennia. As science furthers the exploration of microbial cells and neurological systems, human beings will be able to make more and more rational judgments regarding why particular sensations are occurring and how elements of our nature function.

To utilize a relatively extreme example, one may consider hallucinogenic drugs and how some individuals claim to have "spiritual" mental experiences. For example, in a study done on the effects of Psilocybin; results were found that Psilocybin "produced a range of acute perceptual changes, subjective experiences, and labile moods including anxiety. Psilocybin also increased measures of mystical experience. At 2 months, the volunteers rated the psilocybin experience as having substantial personal meaning and spiritual significance and attributed to the experience sustained positive changes in attitudes and behavior consisted with changes rated by community observers (Griffins, et al., 1)." By studying science and psychology, one may be able to draw a conclusion that there are simply chemical alterations occurring within the brain (as well as throughout the entire body as a whole).

"Hallucinogenic drugs cause both physical and psychological effects on humans. The physical effects of these drugs include: dilated pupils, elevated body temperature, increased heart rate and blood pressure, appetite loss, sleeplessness, tremors, headaches, nausea, sweating, heart palpitations, blurring of vision, memory loss, trembling, and itching. A user of hallucinogenic drugs will also experience a number of psychological alterations in the brain. These drugs may cause hallucinations and illusions as well, as the amplification of sense, and the alterations of thinking and self-awareness (Ebbitt)."

The sensory perception of being out of the body or flying is simply an interaction between physical chemicals and functional mental states, and is therefore an altered physical state. For the many whom cling to conceptions of the supernatural, a materialistic atheist would simply right those experiences off as a delusion.

The mind is constructed through physical processes (as it is in itself an alternative physical state [mental]. When one examines the functionalist theory of the mind, there are many qualities that appear to be accurate a priori. For example, it is reasonable to believe that most rational individuals would, in the least, believe in mental states. This does not force a belief in dualism (or minimally, a strict dualism) as there are no two substances (physical and mental). The fundamental flaw with functionalism is that, as a theory, it seemingly plays it safe by only acknowledging the reality of what most people would agree with. Due to this, the functionalist theory allows too much room for sensible opposition; and as far as my argument for materialism is concerned, allows too much room for an opposing dualist to then insist on two separate substances because there are two different states (mental and physical).

Materialism appears to be the most concise evaluation of the mental and physical, though often it is viewed in such a way that mental states do not exist at all. It would appear to me that the best solution to this dilemma is merging some functionalist ideas with materialism. Functionalists would say that "mental states are functional states." As a materialist, I am pressed to further this logical thought process. Mental states are functional states, and functional states are physical states.

To examine this in a logical equation, it would be as follows:

Mental states (A) are Functional states (B), and Functional states (B) are Physical states (C); therefore Mental states (A) are Physical states (C).

The supervenience of mental states on physical substances appears to be a very logical conclusion to draw, though it may be a matter of sheer linguistics and a common public misconception (the fallacy of argumentum ad populum: "the appeal to the masses") that we perceive the mind as being much more than dependent on physical material.

For those who missed the first two installments of this article series, check out the following links:

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 1)

and

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 2)

Hopefully you enjoyed this rather long article series on the supervenience of the mind and the human zombie. I understand it is a rather complex topic on the whole, so if you have any questions or see any problems with my line of thinking, please feel free to leave a comment and let me know below!

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 2)

To further begin my argument for materialism (and by extension, an atheistic worldview), I will be analyzing the nature of zombies as human beings perceive them through our rampant imaginations in films, comic books, mythic lore, and popular culture. In David Chalmers' article, "Can Consciousness Be Reductively Explained", he argues that there is a logical possibility that zombies could exist; as they are essentially like "lesser" and "unconscious" animals; however they have the same physical form as a human being.

"He (the zombie) is physically identical to me, and we may as well suppose that he is embedded in an identical environment. He will certainly be identical to me functionally: he will be processing the same sort of information, reacting in a similar way to inputs, with his internal configurations being modified appropriately and with indistinguishable behavior resulting. He will psychologically be identical to me. He will even be "conscious" in the functional senses described earlier - he will be awake, able to report the contents of his internal states, able to focus attention in various places, and so on. It is just that none of this functioning will be accompanied by any real conscious experience. There will be no phenomenal feel. There is nothing it is like to be a zombie." - David Chalmers

The fear often associated with zombies in movies and other artistic mediums tend to stem from the fact that, if zombies would come to exist; it would make the most sense that they would spawn from our own species (the human being). The fear that some sort of plague or nuclear fallout would give rise to an enemy so familiar, but yet so different and terrifying is very sensible; and perhaps is a valid reason to examine zombies in a philosophical manner. Popular culture and movies have, specifically, engrained our minds with almost tangible images of zombies; often extremely mutilated and gored, though physically very similar to human beings. While Hollywood and many other outlets have primarily portrayed zombies as, essentially, blood-thirsty, mythological monsters; Chalmers has envisioned what one may deem a "functional" zombie. A being that would be capable of coexisting with humans (instead of attempting to murder and eat them). To further, and perhaps leave, his point; I am interested in the nature of a zombie (a strictly physical being with no mental states or substances) in comparison to a human being (a strictly physical being with mental states). For all intents and purposes, zombies and human beings are one in the same; except when we examine the supervenience of the mind on the body that is special to human beings. Despite this relatively minor difference, the similarities between a human and a zombie are undeniable.

My argument for materialism is then dependent on attempting to logically conclude that a human being and a zombie (both as described above) are equal, despite what I would deem a superficial difference (a supervenient mind). For the sake of my argument, I will give an example where I will describe two different human beings. As one can observe in day-to-day life, the human species is very diverse in that each individual has numerous differences on multiple levels (from skin tone to genetic make-up). It would appear that these physical qualities are superficial when one is asked to describe the appearance and overall nature of a human being. For example, if two men are sitting in a room; one is African and the other a Caucasian, would we view each individual as separate species? Or in our examination of the men will we seemingly ignore the significant difference between the two: skin color. It would appear that skin color (as well as most other features of a human being) is also superficial, and what would define a being as a "human" is much more broad (perhaps, a general body shape like the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci, bone structure as a fundamentally observable foundation, or even a specific neurological framework). Assuming features of the body are superficial, and therefore are strictly dependent on other aspects of the body (there is no skin color without a bone structure, for instance); it would appear that a dependent mind would be equally superficial if it is exclusively dependent on a physical body. Without a mutually exclusive mind substance, mind states logically must depend on the physical body in the same way observable features (such as skin tone) are. If this is truly the case, then mental states appear to be nothing more than an anomaly, perhaps developed through evolutionary means. To reexamine the zombie and the human being explained earlier, a zombie and a human both appear to be equal to one another; despite the human beings' mental states. This is due to "mental" states equaling physical states (identity theory). Logically, my argument would be as follows:

If mental states (A) equal physical states (B), then strictly physical zombies (B) must equal humans with mental states (AB). To further this logic by removing the variable "mental states", since I have concluded that mental states equal physical states, then: physical states (A) contain both zombies (B) and human beings (C).

Upon reaching this rather general conclusion, I feel it is important to backtrack and consider qualia (subjective experience) as it is a vital element that is frequently debated when considering the nature of the mind, and for those engaged in folk psychological thought processes, an element that may define one's "soul" in the afterlife. In truth, as far as my argument is concerned, subjective feels are of no significant value in similar fashion as mental states are of no significant value. It would appear that every "subjective" experience is simply programmed by nature. For example, I subjectively experience eating a piece of pie. I am able to utilize my physical senses, such as taste and smell, while I do this. The qualities of my personal experience eating the pie are merely sensory inputs, which I then am able to perceive and distinguish between. While there is subjective experience, it is limited to physical constructs (and perhaps mental states, though one could argue that beings with no mental states, such as a zombie or a dog, still may have subjective experiences; in that their experiences are different relative to another beings).

For a more in depth example of qualia as it fits into a functional materialistic view, consider the nature of a computer. It seems that the mind is essentially a compilation of "coding" on which we rely which allows us to function in such a way that appears to be free, yet without being completely free (separate from the physical body). Much like one can not run a video game without a video game console, or HTML code a website without a computer; the human animal may have a mind (a video game, HTML code) but its value and existence is solely dependent on its processor (the body, a video game console, a computer). It would seem that due to these dependency relationships, existence (and by extension, any other concept that requires a conscious, existent being to exist, such as freedom, beauty, and national pride) is very linear due to one being (or part of a being) needing to exist prior to another is even capable of existing. In strictly physical terms, one can examine the process of conception. I did not exist prior to being conceived by my parents, nor does my potential future son exist at the present time (even if he may come into existence in the future). Mental states exist in the same way. No one was developing video games for the Playstation 3 until the Playstation 3 (hardware) was developed. HTML coding was not being used until computers were invented, and any concept of HTML code was non-existent until computers were created. In a more broad sense, as it relates to the mind and body, the mind only comes into existence after the physical body is created.

For those who missed it, here is the first part of this article series: The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 1)

The final part can be viewed here: The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 3)

Atheism IS Immoral

Let me begin this post by defining two keywords to be focused on: moral and immoral. These words constitute the grounds on which we can determine whether or not any given belief, or lack of a belief, is "moral."

Moral:

Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Immoral:

Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

While there are many accepted definitions of these words, I found these definitions to most concisely and accurately display the sentiments found within each of the individual definitions. These were taken right from the dictionary, and if you have a problem with these definitions in my analysis; feel free to say so in a comment! As such, I will be moving forward with these definitions of "morality" and "immorality" in mind.

As is evident, I have titled my blog post "Atheism is immoral." But why would an atheist believe in something like this? Why would anyone want to be immoral? These are valid questions for sure.

My simple response to this notion that atheism is immoral is a result from understanding the definitions of these words, and the larger awareness at the existence of many different moral theories. Atheists are often called "immoral" by individuals who are either theists or just stringent fundamentalists and traditionalists. In many respects, these claims are unfounded. They have no formal justification. With that said, let us take these claims a priori ("at face value") and assume they are correct for the sake of experimentation and learning.

For the moment, I am imagining I am a theist and the doctrine of the Christian church is what I believe in. My faith is virtually unshakable. I am bothered by other belief systems, especially those that propose flaws with my own. I believe in Jesus Christ and Yahweh. I believe God speaks to people through his holy word, as found in the Bible. Furthermore, I believe the Bible should be the basis for morality. The Bible is the incarnate word of God, and should therefore be viewed as the ultimate source of knowledge, wisdom, and morality.

This is how I perceive the average Christian would think. If I am wrong, again, feel free to correct me and I will address your points either in a response comment or in a future post. However, moving forward, assuming this to be an accurate depiction of the accurate Christian; the issue of morality can more honestly be discussed. More importantly, the realization that atheism is inherently immoral can also be found.

If the Bible (and by extension the Christian religion and church) is the basis for one's moral code, then atheism is immoral as it is juxtaposed to basic tenants of Christian morality.

When arguing from the side of a theist, there is no doubt that atheists should minimally be perceived as immoral. As in, they act in such a way that "violates moral principles." The moral principles followed by Christians are likely inherently different then those atheists themselves would follow. While we may all agree that in most conditions murder is morally wrong, our justification for this may be rather different. For example, the Ten Commandments plainly states: "Thou shalt not kill." To a Christian, murder is not justified because God has commanded that we not do this. It is sinful and inherently immoral. For an atheist, we are not bound to the will of God, and therefore may conclude that murder is wrong because it violates utilitarian principles (the golden rule), it is socially abhorrent, and similar moral and ethical problems not completely related to the morality and ethics of Scripture.

Since the moral codes of theists and atheists have a tendency to differ, in ways that are both small and great, it is easy to understand how the conclusion that "atheism is immoral" can be reached by those who do not have an atheistic worldview. As such, to a theist, the perception that atheism is, in fact, immoral makes sense. It is logically valid, because the morality these theistic individuals are working off of is one that tells them that atheism IS immoral.

However, the curve ball in the equation is this: By the religious moral code informing us that atheism is immoral, yet other valid moral codes (such as utilitarian moral theory) would suggest that it is not inherently abhorrent; then we are simply stuck in a scenario where the "moral" make-up of an atheist is one that is dependent on how an individual perceives atheists. This my friends is called moral relativism (or subjective morality). The argument that atheism is immoral can go no further then this, as we have no conclusive evidence that any one moral theory is more or less valid then another.

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to stir some debate feel free to comment! Just keep it civil!

Utilitarian Moral Theory and an Atheist

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that which suggests that we should seek the overall happiness in whatever we do. John Stuart Mill describes this moral theory as being one in which we measure "pleasures" and "pains." The goal is to increase the amount of "pleasure," and minimize the amount of "pain" to be experienced by all individuals, societies, the environment, etc. who will be involved in the decision being made, whether directly or indirectly. A simple example is as follows:

A man is considering whether or not he should divorce his wife. Under traditional moral theories, divorce would often be perceived as being an immoral action in most contexts. For example, the Bible outlaws divorce in most circumstances. The Bible is also said to be a source of absolute morality, so one can not get around the fact. On Utilitarian principles, a man may be able to morally justify divorce from his wife. He examines the situation and becomes aware that his divorce will not render her poor. He sees that more pain then pleasure will be brought to himself and to her if they continue being together indefinitely. He still plans to pay child support and be civil friends with her.

While this may be a simple analogy, the moral implication is fairly clear: it is acceptable to get a divorce in this scenario under Utilitarian moral principles. What makes this moral theory more interesting is that, in another more painful scenario, one could make the claim that divorce is immoral. This lead me to my next point: Utilitarian morality is subjective. It is a relative morality which does not contain absolutes.

How does this relate to atheism and morality, then? The purpose of this post is to reveal that there are many moral theories. When discussing morality with religious individuals, the perception of morality is generally one that is absolute and based strictly off church doctrine. While I would not say Utilitarian moral theory is inherently any better or worse then the morality of any given religion, I do propose it as an alternative that is generally viewed as, at least, relatively valid.

Do you have any thoughts on the topic of Utilitarianism or any variety of moral theories? Sound off in the comments section below.

Atheism and Morality - Is Atheism Immoral?

It is a fairly common notion that atheists are "immoral." It is my opinion that this is a stigma placed on atheists, and is the result of ignorance regarding what atheism really is. For those unaware, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are no inherent beliefs tagged along with it. Atheists, without having much ground to stand on, formulate opinions and viewpoints that often contradict traditional and religious ideals. If to be immoral, one must act against the status quo; then perhaps atheism is inherently immoral. If morality is a much more complex issue, and I believe it is, then making the argument that atheists are, at least, morally neutral is relatively simple. As a note: there is no possible way I would make an argument concluding that atheists are morally superior to any other group. This is simply not the case. Additionally, no other group is morally superior to atheists either. If an individuals feels this way, then they are simply making this claim out of ignorance to the variety of moral theories available to work off of (Kantian moral theory, utilitarian moral theory, feminist moral theory, theological moral theory, etc.).

The basis for religious and societal views that atheists are immoral is very much based in historical perceptions of atheists, and by extension pagans.

The English word "atheism" has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:

Atheism

Noun.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

3. Godlessness; immorality.

(Quote is taken from creationtheory.org)

The fact that under atheism's definition is listed immorality is how we can begin to understand how this perception has slipped into mainstream thinking. This is a rather unfortunate thing, considering how atheists by and large are fairly productive members of society like anyone else. Atheists are only immoral if we hold them to religious standards as dictated by the Bible or the Koran (among other holy books). It is not fair to pigeonhole atheists into the moral code as dictated by religion, considering there are many other "moral avenues" which can be taken. For example, I consider myself an adherent to utilitarian moral theory. While it is not perfect, it seems to be most effective for my own day to day life when I make moral choices. I will elaborate further on utilitarian moral theory and it's relation to atheism in another post, as it would require much more space then I wish to dedicate to it in this post.

The final issue related to the morality of atheists is as follows: with what evidence can anyone successfully make this claim that atheists are inherently immoral? From my own research, there is very little to support this claim. Studies which suggest this are statistically insignificant or are significantly flawed in their data collection methods. While one could certainly argue that individuals atheists are immoral (which is reasonable enough), the entire group is not inherently immoral just because they are atheists. That last statement is most important to the purpose of this article: being an atheist does not imply one is immoral.

On Death and Dying for Atheists

One topic that consistently drives me to think about the world I live within is that all too ever-present topic: death.

Death and dying are not particularly desirable experiences for the average individual. Most of us live our lives as if we are immortal, which is fairly ironic considering how every present our mortality really is. Consider even our most basic, instinctual responses from day to day. As you drive down the street and someone cuts you off, you feel your heart begin to race. This is a very quick response. You are pumped full of adrenaline and can make split-second decisions which allow you to get out of the way and avoid a collision with the other driver. This is nature's way of allowing your mortality to communicate directly with you.

For atheists, death is a topic often discussed, though with little to actually discuss. The typical belief is that we simple die and decompose. "Ash to ash, dust to dust." While these words are found both in the Bible and in the Koran, they apply most accurately to atheists in that there is no return to a conscious physical form. The question then becomes: why is the nature of death so important to atheists? Let me speak for myself on this topic as it relates to Christianity (i.e. my upbringing). My own personal fear of death is one that stems from the Christian traditional concept of Hell and the afterlife in general. While I am for all intent and purpose an atheist, I have been psychologically conditioned to fear death on account of the images portrayed of the "after life." If one does not fear the imagery found in Dante's Inferno and Gustave Dore's illustrations of that book, then you are fortunate enough to have not been brought up around the notion of eternal damnation I am sure. Allow me to further examine Christians and how they manage thoughts of death and dying, and analyze how they rub off on society and by extension every individual who is mortal and has a rational fear of death.

Christians impose their own belief on other individuals when it comes to topics related to death, even on those who are not saved. The belief in god (whether rational or not) provides inherent comfort in times of hardship, especially when this belief is fundamental to an individual's lifestyle. When a religious individual loses someone close to them, they immediately will project their perception of their own death onto the recently deceased. For example, a Christian will likely say one of the following:

1. "They are in Heaven."

or

2. "They are in Hell."

There are no alternatives from a Christian's perspective. There is no notion of a simple, natural death where one only goes into the ground eternally. This is perhaps very obvious, but simultaneously very startling. As a result of this dichotomous way of thinking about death, many Christians will surround themselves with like-minded individuals so as to minimize the pain of losing someone who is not a believer in their faith. In all honesty, who would want to believe in something so serious as this and have to live with themselves after seeing a non-Christian depart this world for one of eternal damnation in Hell? I can think of no sympathetic or compassionate person who would desire this. It is only the makings of an inherently evil individual, and perhaps by extension an inherently evil deity, who allows for such knowledge to grace the mind. As such, Christians distance themselves from non-Christians for safety and comfort. This is the first manner of dealing with death.

By extension to this point, Christians have an easier time with death when their loved one's are Christians themselves. The pain and burden of death is relieved when one is confronted with the notion that their loved one is in Heaven (a place of eternal happiness in the presence of God himself). This is an every present memory in my own mind. My sister died at age 4, when I was ~10 years old. At the time I was a "Christian" (as if a 10 year old can honestly make that decision for themselves). Many people around me, all with good intentions, told me "she is in Heaven." For a time, this satisfied me and was just about the only comfort I could grasp. In recent years I have moved away from Christianity, and have come to the relative realization that my sister is just in the dirt. It is disheartening, though I would much rather deal with reality as opposed to clinging to a (highly desirable) fantasy.

How does this relate to atheism? The answer is simple. Christianity has set up a dichotomy with regards to death and the dying process. After one dies, one goes to either the positive afterlife (Heaven) or the negative afterlife (Hell). Christians are able to cope with death fairly successfully, and often have a large support group (friends, the church) to help in addition to this. They are comforted by the thought of Heaven as well, as one would expect. Atheists do not have this latter comfort. While it is not completely rational to fear death when it is just an empty void contained within the Earth, it is a very lonely experience for an atheist. While we all in some way or another "die alone," when one "dies" with God on their mind; they are likely to be comforted. My aunt recently passed away from cancer, and I stood by her deathbed almost like a spectator. She was comfortable with her passing, though. She was a Christian and did not seem to fear the dying experience. Maybe this is the result of age, but as far as I am concerned; I am an atheist and I fear death more then I would expect your average Christian to fear it. Christianity imposes concepts of absolute truth value as well, which have seeped into mainstream thought, media (music, television, film, artwork), and so forth. The conception of Hell is not one exclusively found in Christianity, but this is where many of us come to know about it. Hell is the image perfectly spun to contain human fear on a canvas. Even as an atheist, I fear Hell and eternal suffering. At the end of this article, I cannot help but return to the problem of evil as is often discussed in theological and philosophical circles.

If you have any comments or would like to start a civil debate, feel free!

Does being an atheist imply that one will be immoral?

Since leaving Christianity, one question that has plagued my newly reformed mind is: what motivates me to act in a moral fashion? The answer is not a particularly simple one.

Before I explore this question in more depth, I must make you aware that my former attachment with religion is one that bound me in a shroud of ignorance, fear, and often a lack of desire to see viewpoints outside of my own. This is a fairly common occurrence as far as religion as a social device is concerned. That is not too say that all religious individuals are ignorant, but the nature of religion itself is one that can lead to a sensation of being blind to other world views; especially when many of those viewpoints are deemed inherently "wrong" and by extension "Satanic" or "sinful." Speaking in terms of mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam, a line has been drawn in the sand. If one crosses said line, then they are often viewed by their respective churches as acting in accordance with the devil. The most unfortunate observance of scenarios related to this is one a few of us may know all too well. I have seen religious men and woman (from my former church) who were unwilling to pick up books that discuss topics juxtaposed to the nature of their religious ideology. My simple observance is this: if simply reading is "wrong" (or by extension sinful in the eyes of God), then how can one rationally conclude that basing one's morality based on God himself is acceptable? If we are not allowed to view the world through any other lenses then our own bias, then how can saying "morality is only found in the absolute truth of God's existence" express a reasonable sentiment without having an in depth, personal dispute over which moral theories are superior and inferior?

Of course, let me again be clear, not all religious people act like this. However, this is a remarkable observation I noticed in my younger year and is important to note for the sake of this blog.