Religulous

Went and saw religulous the other day with Dan and Sofia. It was playing at the Paramount as part of the world cinema showcase, and it was alright. Like many of these things it is unlikely to convince anyone of anything really; not many people would go in a theist and come out athiest, and there probably aren’t many films or sermons that would swing someone the other way either. The narrator and writer, Bill Maher, is apparently a comic, and it seemed more like a series of one-liners and gags than a real argument against the existence of God, or for anything particularly. He did sum up with a Dawkinsesque tirade on how we should actively believe in no God rather than apathetically not believe in any, which I find an interesting argument. I don’t believe in God, but I tend to accept/respect others who do (inc a few readers of this blog). Just a bit of harmless fun, no? According to Maher, and Dawkins (his writing in The God Delusion arguing against a “belief in belief” is the only part I’ve read), no. Maher shows politicians and educationalists and Jesus-saves themepark operators and argues in a longwinded and giggling sneering sort of way that en fait belief in God, Allah, etc is not so harmless and those of us who don’t believe it shouldn’t just let it be. Interesting. Presumably the motivation for the Atheist Bus Campaign too.

There is one priceless moment in the doco that makes the disconnectedness of the rest all worthwhile. Interviewing a US Senator, presumably even a real one, he somehow elicits the response “you don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate” (!). True story. About 40 seconds into the trailer:

In other news, this is my 100th post to this blog. Whoop! Please feel free to email me a high five.

Raskolnikov Right?

I’ve been re-reading Crime and Punishment lately. Lately being the last three months or so (when I started re-reading I thought it could never take as long as first time through. Now it looks like it’s going to be even longer). If you don’t know of it, this is wikipedia’s plot summary:

Crime and Punishment focuses on the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, an impoverished St. Petersburg ex-student who formulates and executes a plan to kill a hated, unscrupulous pawnbroker seemingly for her money, thereby solving his financial problems and at the same time, he argues, ridding the world of an evil worthless parasite. Raskolnikov also strives to be an extraordinary being, similar to Napoleon, believing that murder is permissible in pursuit of a higher purpose.

The novel mostly deals with the psychology of Raskolnikov after he commits the crime, and his relationships with his family and acquaintances. It doesn’t deal much with whether or not he was correct in his premise… but I think it’s an interesting question. He thinks that some crimes are permissible to some people, if they would not be able to achieve some greatness without committing them. I think it’s true, in theory. If you can save 100 people with the death of one, is it right for that one to die? I find it hard to say no. Or at least, can think of specific situations for which I find it hard to say no. The pragmatic problem is of knowing for sure that 100 people can be saved, and that the cost would only be the death of one, and that is where Raskolnikov makes his mistake… He thought it would be a simple action and for the overall greater good, saving his own life from poverty, and his sister’s from submission, and at a much lesser cost. It eventuates that he achieves neither of those things, and is forced into another murder unwillingly in order to hide his first.

I don’t think he was right in killing Alyona (and Lizaveta), but I understand his theory. Isn’t there a philosophical name for that kind of morality, in which the total net gain or loss of each action should be calculated to know its moral right- or wrong-ness. Its opposite to the kind of moral rule that upholds that X is never right, no matter what its consequences (also has a philosophical name that I’ve forgotten).

So that’s the theory. But practise is different.  Since we shortsighted mortals can never know the consequences of any action or inaction, I think we should stick to the absolute laws that we currently use.