Fractal Pensive Ziztur
Freedom of the Mind.
Ziztur.com

Monday, September 7, 2009

Liberal, MO: Atheist Utopia

I live in St. Louis, MO, and have for my entire life (and so have my parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great-great grandparents. It's hard to be more native St. Lou than I am). The people here are crazy and so St. Louisans can often be heard saying, "I am not from Missouri, I am from St. Louis", but we do have the best state slogan. Missouri's official slogan is one with which every atheist/skeptic can relate; we're "The Show-Me State". 

Amusingly enough, Missouri is home to the only town in the country founded specifically for the purpose of creating a freethinking atheist utopia.

That town is Liberal, Missouri

Believe it or not, Liberal, Missouri (which is in the southwest corner of the state and is .8 miles square with a census of about 800 people) was started as an atheist, "freethinker" utopia in 1880 by George Walser, an anti-religionist, agnostic lawyer. The goal was for atheists to come and live in a churchless and saloonless town where people could raise their children without religion. Walser wanted a place where freethinkers could live to their standards of decency and morality in a quiet, unmolested way, away from missionaries the barrage of religion. Christians were not allowed, and Liberal was advertised as " the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil."

Shortly after the city was funded, a Christian by the name of H. H. Waggonerbought a parcel of land to be an "addition" to Liberal for the express purpose of "live[ing] unmolested and watch with contempt the doings of their infidel neighbors" and "inducing immigration of Christians who would be strong enough to out number the Liberals and defeat the enterprise." What's an infidel city to do when Christians try to defeat a freethinking city? Why, build a big barbed-wire fence around it, obviously. Apparently the whole town, including the "infidel women" got involved to build the fence. 

From the December 1, 1938 edition of the Sikeston (Missouri) Herald:
"The founder of this unique community experiment, George H. Walser, was born in Indiana in 1834. He went to Barton county immediately after the war, where he was soon recognized as one of the best lawyers in southwest Missouri. He was elected prosecuting attorney there, and became a member of the 25th assembly. With an eye for future developments he purchased 2,000 acres (8 km2) of land and selected the site of Liberal as the home of an experiment in intellectual community living. He was an agnostic and placed himself in open opposition to organized religion. "With one foot upon the neck of priestcraft and the other upon the rock of truth," he declared, "we have thrown our banner to the breeze and challenge the world to produce a better cause for the devotion of man than that of a grand, noble and perfect humanity." In harmony with the purpose for organizing the town a number of unusual institutions designed to promote the ideal community were tried during the 1880's and 1890's. The first of these was a Sunday Morning Instruction School, where children were taught from "Youth Liberal Guide" and from various works on physics, chemistry, and other sciences. In another class organized for older young people elementary experiments in the physical sciences were performed under the supervision of teachers whose avowed function was to encourage and direct free intelligent discussion. In the Mental Liberty Hall lectures were given each Sunday evening, and scientists, philosophers, socialists, atheists, Protestant ministers and Catholic priests were invited to speak—respectable decorum being the only limitation placed upon any speaker. Large enthusiastic crowds gathered each week in the interest of mental liberty. The Liberal Normal School and Business Institute was another institution organized by Walser to promote liberal education free from the bias of Christian theology. This school was well advertised and soon had a large enrollment. According to a tract published in 1885, the Liberal Normal School and Business Institute was "located in the liberal town, taught by liberal teachers and courted only the patronage of liberal patrons." Out of this organization developed Free Thought University, which opened in 1886 with a staff of seven teachers.
There were actually people at the train stations warning Christians that they were not welcome – so Christians barraged the town on mission to convert the heathens:
As news spread about Liberal, Christians came to convert the town. Walser tried to keep them out by posting his followers at the Liberal train station to tell passengers that if they were Christians they were not welcome, according to an 1896 article in The Kansas City Star. They came anyway. Some Christians quietly bought homes and began holding religious services. Walser would interrupt them and even put a stop to it after he proved to a court that the services were being held on properties he still partly owned. The Christians then bought land next to Liberal and moved more than a dozen houses there from Liberal. The last building had a sign attached that said: "And the Lord said: Get thee out of Sodom." Walser then built a barbed wire fence to keep them out of Liberal. (Kansas City Star on Saturday, December 22, 2001)
According to a transcription of a book on the history of Liberal, a pastor described as a "great controversialist" wrote a pamphlet and an op-ed to the St. Louis Post Dispatch (1885):
The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key.... These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances. Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils.
Apparently shortly after writing his pamphlet, the pastor was arrested for embezzlement, though he claims he was arrested for libel against Liberal. Also apparently, the saloons did not move in until the churches moved in. Liberal soon dissolved into a regular old town.

This writer from Apologetics Press wrote a piece on Liberal, MO, claiming that the town fell as an atheist utopia because atheists cannot be trusted and that towns can't survive without God:
"It took only a few short years for Liberal's unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a "sober, trustworthy" town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure.
How about the fact that Christians were constantly barraging them from all sides? That makes a town pretty damn unattractive. Essentially, Liberal was doomed to failure due to the constant barrage of Christians trying to destroy the town or at least look on as if Liberal was some kind of godless freak show. The authoritarianism probably didn't help either, and one can expect that if you attempt to erect a town based on an unpopular philosophical worldview in a country whose inhabitants believe you are one of the root causes of all social ills, your town is pretty much doomed before you break ground.
 


Of course, the founder eventually converted to spiritualism and then Christianity before he died. Figures.

Liberal, MO - your absolutely astounding history will be well-remembered in the heart of this Show-Me State native. xoxoxoxo

Labels: , , , ,

34 Comments:

Blogger jdhuey said...

What gets me is the inherent internal contradiction in trying to establish a 'liberal' town but then using authoritarian means in order to keep it 'liberal'. This is, of course, the same sorta conflict that Europe is currently facing with the influx of Islamic immigrants. How do you go about allowing a sub-culture to exist, when the ideals of that sub-culture are antithetical to the dominant culture.

September 7, 2009 2:39 PM  
Blogger Flimsyman said...

Authoritarian? I agree, not allowing a certain type of person to live in a given place for religious reasons is ethically questionable at the very least, and it's highly distasteful in any event, but I do think that there needs to be *some* avenue of moral and ethical authority that isn't beholden to the whims of democracy (in the United States government, this would be the judiciary).

This is obviously a very imperfect solution, but I'm not sure what better options there are. In the past, such a body has indeed pushed rational ideals and ethics when they still seemed "new" and revolutionary (Brown V. Board of Education, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, etc.). This certainly isn't to say that it doesn't have it's problems or that it's not possible for such a system to be abused, but I think that it's better than having none at all.

September 8, 2009 2:50 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

Trying to build a "free thinking" city by excluding those who think differently takes hypocrisy to a whole new dimension. Its also hilarious that you're blaming the Christians on the outside for the failure of the town. Its odd that someone who claims such a staunch objectivity would care one way or another if someone is or isn't an atheist. Its perfectly possible to raise someone without exposing them to religion if you live in a communist country, but not in a free country with truly free-thinking people.

September 8, 2009 4:33 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

Hi Highboy! I missed you!

"Trying to build a "free thinking" city by excluding those who think differently takes hypocrisy to a whole new dimension."

I can understand why this might be confusing, but I think you're equivocating here. "Freethinking" and "free thinking" are two different things. "Freethinkers" are not necessarily tolerant to all ideas. In fact, there are specific ideas that "freethinkers" do not tolerate. I am not tolerant to all ideas, and I don't claim to be. Now, if this were called, "TolorateAllIdeasTown", you might have more of a point.

If you thought of the word "freethinking" as something closer to "religion-free thinking", then you might be able to see better why this really isn't hypocritical.

You would be equivocating in the same way if you called a gay person hypocritical for being depressed. "gay" means both "homosexual" and "really super happy".

Freethinking is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. Now, if you said the town was being hypocritical because of the authoritarian aspect - I would agree with you.

"Its also hilarious that you're blaming the Christians on the outside for the failure of the town."

I think I gave pretty good reasons. Is there a *reason* you think this is hilarious?

"Its odd that someone who claims such a staunch o
objectivity would care one way or another if someone is or isn't an atheist."

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The town's demise really had nothing to do with "atheist vs Christian" as much as "unpopular philosophy vs popular philosophy". I am sure the same thing would have happened if a group of people tried to form a town in any country based on a minority philosophy.

"Its perfectly possible to raise someone without exposing them to religion if you live in a communist country, but not in a free country with truly free-thinking people.

Good point, which is why I fully intend to expose my children to religion rather than attempt to shelter them from it - it would be wrong of me to deny my children the ability to think for themselves and I certainly don't want a FlimsyZiztur clone.

Again, you're equivocating "freethinker" with "someone who accepts all opinions". A "freethinker" is "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." I can see how this mistake is easy to make, however.

So you don't think that the constant barrage of Christians had ANYTHING to do with it? Really? I admit that the authoritarianism in the town was part of its ultimate demise. You just can't develop a town based on principals that the majority of the country abhors without expecting problems, but I definitely do not think that the town fell due to "atheist untrustworthiness" as suggested by the AIG post. I think it fell because they were attempting to establish a town based on an unpopular philosophical worldview that intentionally banned the popular worldview of the country.

September 8, 2009 5:49 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

Did you really miss me or are you being a smart ass?

I got your point about the "freethinking" vs. "free thinking" stuff so I won't address it further. But there is something else to consider. You stated that freethinkers "is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." Couple of questions in my famous numbered point by point format:

1. How do you do that without creating your own dogma? Traditions? Authority?
2. How would you label all the different "freethinker" individuals who hold their opinions based on scientific interpretation that differs from the scientific interpretation from a fellow freethinker? Is one a true freethinker and the other not really? Do all freethinkers hold true to the same opinions across the board in order to be true freethinkers?
3. What logic and reason are the freethinkers stemming their opinions from? Theists use the same human reason and human logic that freethinker atheists do. If you think that there is an absolute human logic/reasoning, the "correct" reasoning if you will, you would have to show some sort of evidence of that.

September 8, 2009 6:40 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

No, I really did miss you! I'm not being a smart ass. It's boring when everyone agrees with me.

1. How do you do that without creating your own dogma? Traditions? Authority?

Good question. I think this depends on what you mean by those three things. Dogma is an idea that is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. I suppose you could argue that one could be dogmatic in their adherence to science, logic and reason, but I don't think that science, logic and reason are immune from dispute, divergence or doube - people dispute, diverge and doubt those things with me all the time and I don't tell them they are not allowed to dispute it.

I think the matter of tradition is one in which we do not hold that something is important solely because it is traditional - but I don't think we can completely avoid being influenced by tradition. That kind of reminds me of Henry David Thoreau going off into the woods.

I think the point about authority is that freethinkers do not take the word of someone just BECAUSE they are an authority. Any authority would have to back up his or her position with science and reason and logic. So, maybe the freethinking definition is not exactly accurate - but it's hard to sum up a philosophical worldview in a sentence.

2. How would you label all the different "freethinker" individuals who hold their opinions based on scientific interpretation that differs from the scientific interpretation from a fellow freethinker?

I don't know, it depends! If a fellow freethinker decided that morality was relative, I'd say that person is a freethinker and also a moral relativist, maybe?

Is one a true freethinker and the other not really?

Again, it depends on the specific opinion the freethinker holds. "freethinker" is also historically a social movement that encompasses people like deists and pantheists and spiritualists and even *gasp* postmodernists. It basically means anyone who forms their philosophical worldview primarily on science, logic and reason. "should not be influenced by tradition, authority or dogma" was probably incorrect wording.

So, I think will alter my definition: a freethinker is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should primarily be formed on the basis of science logic and reason rather than authority, tradition or dogma.

Do all freethinkers hold true to the same opinions across the board in order to be true freethinkers?

Nope.

3. What logic and reason are the freethinkers stemming their opinions from? Theists use the same human reason and human logic that freethinker atheists do. If you think that there is an absolute human logic/reasoning, the "correct" reasoning if you will, you would have to show some sort of evidence of that.

I don't think there are absolutes, but I do think that people can err in their use of reasoning.

September 8, 2009 7:00 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

Also, Flimsy and I have said several times that we miss having you around to point-counterpoint us. Because... even though we argue like hell, we still got the feeling that if we met in person we'd still somehow be friends.

September 8, 2009 7:07 PM  
Blogger highboy said...

So I get all the responses you've given me but number 3 is kind of a throw away. To say that people can err in their use of reasoning requires some sort of demonstrative evidence, especially due to its implication. You've given that there aren't absolutes in reasoning but definitely a better/worse line of reasoning. Exactly how do you go about proving one is better than the other?

As for missing me, I'm pleased to say that I have my new internet service finally, a local satellite internet service called Winbeam. They finally installed my dish, and what's better is that they are 5 minutes away and all speak English! So I should be around for a while.

September 8, 2009 9:28 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

I don't think you disagree that people can err in their reasoning, but I will provide an explanation anyway.

How you would prove that one line of reasoning is better than the other depends on the situation.

One of the ways I like to prove that a given line of reasoning is a "worse" way of reasoning is to break the argument down and apply it somewhere else. For example, if someone makes this argument:

"Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural"

I would probably point out that this is their argument, broken down into premises, inferences and conclusions:

P. Things that are unnatural are wrong
P. Homosexuality is unnatural
C. Therefore homosexuality is wrong

If both of these premises were true, than the conclusion would have to be true, because it is a deductive argument. However this line of reasoning is based on 2 unproven assumptions.

1. Things that are unnatural are wrong.
2. Homosexuality is unnatural.

I can show that premise 1 is unsound by pointing out that a. "natural" and "unnatural" are not clearly defined, b. once defined, there will likely be many things which fall into the "unnatural" category which are not wrong, like cars, computers, houses, or behaviors like sitting out on your front porch after dinner, driving a car, or standing still at a rock concert. Thus, simply being natural or unnatural is not an indicator of rightness or wrongness.

I can show that premise 2 is unsound by pointing out that homosexual behavior is seen in most species of animals and therefore is a natural behavior by most definitions of what "natural" means.

The conclusion of the argument still may be true for some other, different reason, but "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" is an error in reasoning, because the premises of this particular argument do not lead to the conclusion. There may be better arguments against homosexuality, but this is not one of them.

And actually, I may withdraw my statement that there are no "absolutes" in reasoning if you tell me precisly what you mean by "absolute".

September 8, 2009 9:49 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

So, if I were to apply the same argument but with something other than homosexuality:

Things that are unnatural are wrong
Eating a formal dinner is unnatural
Therefore eating a formal dinner is wrong

The argument sounds really... just.. silly! This means that there are one of two problems:

1. The argument just doesn't work, or is unsound, because it makes no sense
2. I have applied the argument inappropriately.

September 8, 2009 9:57 PM  
Blogger highboy said...

By absolute, I mean absolute. There is no other way of saying it. Its been pointed out to me that belief in God defies human reason. I want to understand why, since it implies that the vast majority of the human race suffers from an inferior ability to reason as opposed to the minority of humans who have reasoned there is no supernatural entity. You just were off and running with a little brokendown formula to show why one argument in your mind used better reasoning, and even gave an explanation as to why. One problem is that homosexuality has nothing to do with any species other than humans. So pointing out that certain animal species in the animal kingdom have been seen to engage in same sex intercourse isn't an example at all, as none of them are homosexuals.

September 8, 2009 10:06 PM  
Blogger highboy said...

You snuck another comment in on me while I was typing the above. We can have some fun for this and make some points while we're at it. (or maybe not) Let me preface this by saying I agree, the above dinner argument you posted is silly. I'll now pretend I don't. Lets argue for the hell of it.

If things that are unnatural are wrong, and eating a formal dinner is unnatural, than yes, its definitely wrong, morally speaking. You've deduced that either the options are that you applied the argument inappropriately, or that its unsound, because it makes no sense. But you have to demonstrate why something that makes no sense to you, is therefore illogical across the board. Because the argument sounded silly to you, you've reasoned that the reasoning was wrong. But which reasoning is the correct reasoning? Its perfectly logical to think an unnatural dinner is wrong if all things unnatural are wrong. At least that's how I see it.

September 8, 2009 10:14 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

"One problem is that homosexuality has nothing to do with any species other than humans. "

Why doesn't homosexuality have anything to do with nonhumans? Are you defining "homosexuality" as something like "romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex of human beings"?


I don't think that belief in god defies human reason, really. Most humans reason that there is a god!

Okay, so let's enjoy ourselves with this argument, ha.


Yes, it is perfectly logical to think that a formal dinner is wrong if you think all things unnatural are wrong. On that point I totally agree with you -you are right. This is why the argument is deductive.

A deductive argument is an argument in which if the premises are true, than the conclusion MUST be true. So, that's basically what you are saying - IF all unnatural things are wrong, and formal dinners are unnatural, then formal dinners are wrong.

The reasoning error lies in the premises, which we both agree are flawed.

For the sake of pretending we don't agree, arguing for the hell of it sounds fun :) (!!)

We should probably modify the argument slightly to say, "All unnatural behaviors are wrong" to simplify things.

If you argue that all unnatural behaviors are wrong, I might point out other behaviors that are unnatural and ask you if you think those things are wrong: driving a car, going skydiving, living in a house, sleeping on a bed made of synthetic fibers, wearing clothes, getting an advanced medical degree, etc.

Let's say I make a list of "unnatural" behaviors that seem benign to me (like the ones above).

You could probably argue one of a few ways against me:

1. Say yep, all those things are wrong.
2. argue that some of them are incorrectly labeled as unnatural when they are actually natural.

I might also point out natural things and ask you if those things are "right" because they are natural. Now, you have not made this argument - you could very well say that I am creating a false dichotomy by assuming that just because unnatural behaviors are wrong does not mean that natural behaviors are right.

If we can agree that the list we make only contains unnatural behaviors, and you say that all of those things in the list are wrong, I'd probably then have to ask you to define what exactly you mean by "wrong". If by "wrong" you just mean "unnatural", then we aren't really arguing about anything. If by "wrong' you mean "morally wrong", then I'd probably have to ask you how you came to that conclusion, or ask you to explain your morals.

Dude, we need a chat room.

September 8, 2009 11:50 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

Ziztur, every medical dictionary I've looked up define homosexuality as sexuality between to persons of the same sex. Keyword: persons.

"I don't think that belief in god defies human reason, really. Most humans reason that there is a god!"

That was kind of my point.

All unnatural behavior is wrong. By wrong, I mean morally wrong. I believe we were created by nature and that what is natural is what is intended. Therefore, anything outside the natural order is wrong. (save for internet blogging, you have to give me a pass for the sake of argument on this one) Yes, we need a chat room. Off to bed, will check back tomorrow.

September 9, 2009 12:29 AM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

All unnatural behavior is wrong. By wrong, I mean morally wrong. I believe we were created by nature and that what is natural is what is intended. Therefore, anything outside the natural order is wrong.

The conclusion only follows if you make at least one more assumption, viz.

1. Anything that is not intended, is not right, nor morally neutral.

A ‘natural’ corollary, which you may or may not believe, is

2. Anything that is intended, is morally right.

But then you have merely defined the word “unnatural” as meaning “against the intentions of the creator”, whether you call that creator “nature” or “God”; and if (as Christians tend to) you further define your deity as the source of morality, then you have simply defined “unnatural” as “immoral”. That’s a pretty useless definition, and I think not much in line with the way most people use the word “natural”. (Most people would agree that instincts are natural, but also that it is often a good thing to control your instincts and sometimes act contrarily to them.)

If you do not define your deity thus, then it is not clear why the intentions of this creator should have any bearing on moral rectitude.

September 9, 2009 12:50 AM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

Ziztur, every medical dictionary I've looked up define homosexuality as sexuality between to persons of the same sex. Keyword: persons.

Is it by any chance the case that these medical dictionaries are written with a slant toward human medicine? If so, the bias should be fairly obvious…

When most of us speak of homosexuality—I can confidently speak at least for Ziztur and for myself—we refer to sexual attraction and/or activity between animals of the same sex, whether or not these animals be of the species Homo sapiens. Thus defined, it has been observed in a very wide range of species, including for instance swans, koalas, and penguins.

September 9, 2009 12:52 AM  
Anonymous highboy said...

Peter, pointing out that you think a definition is useless isn't exactly an argument, nor does it in any way prove my reasoning to be erroneous. And if the English language is of any use to us, homosexuality is between two people. Period.

September 9, 2009 8:33 AM  
Blogger Flimsyman said...

Interesting. I'd be curious to see the definition for heterosexuality in these books. If such a book defines homosexuality as only occurring between human beings in some way, shape, or form, then I'd probably wager that the book's definition for heterosexuality is worded very similarly.

Would you consider that an acceptable definition for heterosexuality? If a book mentioned "persons" or "humans" specifically, then would it be accurate to say that non-human animals cannot be heterosexual either?

I agree that a much more meaningful definition of both terms included any organisms with a specific sex, either male or female. I've never seen a definition excluding non-human animals, myself.

September 9, 2009 9:03 AM  
Blogger highboy said...

It also defined homosexuality as the state of being homosexual. Not sure why that was relevant but thought I'd post it anyhow.

September 9, 2009 10:33 AM  
Blogger highboy said...

Since flimsy brought it up I looked up heterosexuality in the Medical Dictionary:

"Erotic attraction, predisposition, or sexual behavior between persons of the opposite sex."

That's literally all it says. Odd.

September 9, 2009 10:36 AM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines “homosexuality” as “(1) the quality or state of being homosexual; (2) erotic activity with another of the same sex”, without making reference to species.

A particular medical dictionary might restrict itself to the human animal; it might, for instance, define “limb” as “arm or leg” (the M-W dictionary more universally defines it as “one of the projecting paired appendages (as an arm, wing, fin, or parapodium) of an animal body made up of diverse tissues (as epithelium, muscle, and bone) derived from two or more germ layers and concerned especially with movement and grasping but sometimes modified into sensory or sexual organs”).

But that’s really an aside. A medical dictionary’s raison d’être is to define terminology as used in medicine, not to authoratively define the proper use of English vocabulary.

September 9, 2009 12:40 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

Veterinary dictionaries seem think animals can be homosexual:

http://merckveterinarymanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/140208.htm

September 9, 2009 12:46 PM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

Peter [sic], pointing out that you think a definition is useless isn't exactly an argument, nor does it in any way prove my reasoning to be erroneous.

If I am correct in judging your definition to be circular (and I note that, while you object to my doing so, you have not actually claimed that I was wrong), then you haven’t made an argument (or at best, only a question-begging one): If you define “unnatural” as “morally wrong”, and go on to “argue” that “everything that is unnatural, is wrong”, all you have really said is “everything that is wrong, is wrong”—hardly a useful statement!

More generally, by defining “unnatural” in the way you have done, you have made it a completely useless word in talking to anyone who does not believe in a divine creator. People like Ziztur, Flimsy, and I do not believe that nature was “created”; therefore, it obviously was not created with any intention. If there is no intention to creation (because no creation), then nothing is “unnatural” in the sense you describe; the word loses meaning.

If you wish to argue “from nature” (“X is unnatural; unnatural things are bad; therefore X is bad”), you must

1. provide a working definition of “unnatural”; but
2. not define “unnatural” as bad, or you are merely stating a tautology.

September 9, 2009 12:47 PM  
Blogger highboy said...

Petter I have to disagree. Nature whether intelligent or not has very distinct intentions. As a matter of fact, the theory of evolution and the idea of adaption has an intention. Species adapt with the intention of survival. Whether or not you believe its masterminded by an intelligent designer is irrelevant. So in regards to this, my argument that was is unnatural, or unintended is bad, isn't circular at all. My teeth were specifically designed so that I could eat my food. So doing something with my teeth other than eating food would make it unnatural, and therefore, wrong.

September 9, 2009 12:57 PM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

That is absolutely, completely, and fundamentally wrong. The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution does not postulate any form of intention behind evolution; indeed it is antithetical to the idea. The basic principle of natural selection, one of the driving forces of evolution, is that any and all beneficial mutations tend to become fixed in a population simply because they are beneficial, where “beneficial” is not defined in terms of anything’s intentions, but in terms of increased inclusive fitness. In crude terms, if a mutation gives you more grandchildren than the other guy, the mutation will spread.

Species do not consciously “adapt”; species do not act with intention. Individuals act with intentions (if they are endowed with a sufficiently advanced nervous system), but individuals do not adapt in the evolutionary sense.

Further, the example with teeth is egregiously wrong. Structures that originally evolved for one “purpose” are frequently co-opted for other purposes. This is so well-established in evolutionary biology that there’s even a special, technical term for it: Exaptation. A related concept is when structures that occurred for no particular reason (neutral mutations), or as a side effect of something else, is co-opted for a new “purpose”: These co-opted structures were dubbed “spandrels” by Stephen J. Gould, by analogy with architecture.

For a fuller explanation of all this, see Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker, which is largely dedicated to explaining precisely why it is that evolution does not imply purpose or intent.

September 9, 2009 1:05 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

"The basic principle of natural selection, one of the driving forces of evolution, is that any and all beneficial mutations tend to become fixed in a population simply because they are beneficial, where “beneficial” is not defined in terms of anything’s intentions, but in terms of increased inclusive fitness. In crude terms, if a mutation gives you more grandchildren than the other guy, the mutation will spread."

Why would only beneficial mutations become fixed in a population and not non-beneficial mutations? Or is that just a coincidence?

"Structures that originally evolved for one “purpose” are frequently co-opted for other purposes."

So what other purpose are teeth co-opted for? Or are we just assuming that they have more than one purpose because various other structures have developed multiple purposes? Regardless of how many purposes my teeth have, it doesn't change the point of the example, so not sure what your point is. My point was that my teeth have a purpose(s). Using my teeth for something outside that purpose(s) would be unnatural, as nature didn't design my teeth for such a purpose, making it morally wrong?

September 9, 2009 3:08 PM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

Why would only beneficial mutations become fixed in a population and not non-beneficial mutations? Or is that just a coincidence?

With neutral mutations, it may happen by coincidence (see genetic drift, an interesting topic in its own right).

With deleterious mutations... A mutation that causes an animal to run slower, to produce less offspring, to metabolise its food less efficiently, with suffer a penalty to its inclusive fitness—that is, it will happen to leave behind fewer descendants. These, in turn, if they carry the mutation, will also tend to do worse than their con-specific competitors...and so for precisely the same way that beneficial mutations spread, deleterious mutations tend to quickly die out. (Indeed it is the same process; the difference between a deleterious mutation versus the status quo on the one hand, and on the other hand the status quo versus a beneficial mutation, is only one of initial prevalence.)

It’s not random, nor is it intentional; it is merely inevitable.

So what other purpose are teeth co-opted for? Or are we just assuming that they have more than one purpose because various other structures have developed multiple purposes? Regardless of how many purposes my teeth have, it doesn't change the point of the example, so not sure what your point is. My point was that my teeth have a purpose(s). Using my teeth for something outside that purpose(s) would be unnatural, as nature didn't design my teeth for such a purpose, making it morally wrong?

Teeth specifically have likely only ever served one purpose, but the point you were trying to make was presumably a general one, and many structures have been exapted. For instance, feathers evolved in dinosaurs as a means to keep and regulate heat, but in birds have been exapted as an aid to flight. Does that mean that using feathers for flight is wrong? Digits evolved in fish as structurs to stiffen and control fins, to aid swimming, but have been exapted in tetrapods as organs for balancing and grasping. Is grasping things with your fingers wrong? The swim bladder found in fish was in all likelihood originally a form of lung but is now used to regulate swimming depth. —I could go on at very great length.

Even in the context of the narrow example of human teeth, though, we do use them for many things other than attacking prey animals and chewing food (clearly their evolved “purposes”): Forming speech, whistling, biting off thread when sewing, nibbling a lover’s neck, advertising toothpaste, displaying jewellery, holding pencils, &c. Are all these morally wrong? How would you know? How do you determine which acts are “unnatural”?

September 9, 2009 3:22 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

Since we're talking specifically about teeth, here are some purposes teeth are used for other than chewing food:

Adding caps or gems to your teeth for decoration
Using your teeth to open a bag
Using your teeth to cut a piece of thread while sewing
Using your teeth to groom your fingernails
Using a tooth from a dead animal as a weapon or for decoration.
Using teeth for working leather to make shoes
using your teeth to hold something in your mouth when you need an extra hand
Using your teeth erotically to bite your partner's neck or other (*ahem*) erogenous zones
Clicking your teeth together to make a noise that makes a baby laugh
Biting someone in self-defense
Sticking a flashlight in your mouth to make your teeth glow and thus amusing someone

How do you determine which, if any, of these uses of teeth is outside their "purpose"?

Also, to get away from only teeth did "nature design" us to drive cars? fly in airplanes? hang out at the top floor of a skyscraper? watch movies? use the internet? text on a phone? sit in church? Do gymnastics? Play pro-baseball? Use a wheelchair?

I mean clearly, arms were not "designed" to push wheelchairs. The structure of the upper arm is such that arms develop chronic overuse injuries in a matter of a few years if they are used in the repetitive and impact-heavy task of pushing yourself around in a wheelchair. Clearly, using a wheelchair is using the arms for a purpose they are not structured for. Is using a wheelchair morally wrong?

September 9, 2009 3:33 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

Well that useless debate for the hell of it just ran its course. Fun while it lasted ziztur. I'm all out of retarded rebuttals.

September 9, 2009 7:08 PM  
Blogger Ziztur said...

Hahaha! That was some good stuff - I think you actually literally raised the blood pressure of someone in another country (Petter) with that!

:)

September 9, 2009 7:31 PM  
Anonymous highboy said...

I thought he'd know from the comments above I didn't really ascribe to the stuff. Actually, I almost posted an argument myself suggesting that the very fact that a product of nature was eating a formal dinner made the act a natural act in itself but at this juncture why bother?

September 9, 2009 7:44 PM  
Blogger Petter Häggholm said...

I’ve encountered much dumber arguments from people who, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, were perfectly sincere; cf. Poe’s Law.

September 9, 2009 9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Zizter,
I found your site when searching for more on the history of Liberal, MO. Four of my great-great grandparents moved to Liberal, my great-grandparents met there, and married later in Toledo, Oregon. I think you would get a kick out of my great-grandmother, Minnie Owram Murray. While still in high school Minnie founded a business and worked as a professional photographer. Minnie was a bit forward thinking even for Liberal: she cut her hair short, refused to wear a corset, dressed in "man-tailored" jackets, her skirts were considered too short (they showed her ankles), and she wore broad-toed, flat shoes. Apparently her appearance caused quite a stir, even in Liberal - after a newspaper published an article about her appearance, Minnie's mother requested that she let her hair grow long again. Minnie and her parents were vegetarian, abolitionists, tee-totalers, and seem to have had an affinity for spiritualism and transcendentalism. Years after she left Liberal, when she was in her 80's, Minnie listed "The Light of Asia" as her favorite book. As far as I'm concerned, the "Liberal experiment" was anything but a failure - the city allowed my great-grandmother to grow up in a less oppressive environment than she would otherwise have been subjected to. If only on the basis of a single life, I consider Liberal a success.

If you're interested in the story of my awesome great-grandmother, you can read more about her life in a book that was just published in 2009...an Oregon historian named Ted Cox wrote "Murray Loop", published through "OldWorldPublications.com".

Sincerely,
Minnie's g-granddaugher

January 4, 2010 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, Minnie's g-granddaughter. My g-grandparents lived near Liberal, pre- and post civil war & my grandfather grew up there. He told me he remembered when a banner hung across the main street of Liberal, which said "Nigger, don't let the sun go down on you in Liberal, MO."
Doesn't sound like a very liberal town to me! Though I have read several articles and a book about Liberal, the anti-black sentiment was not mentioned.
Bill's granddaughter.

January 19, 2010 5:00 PM  

Post a Comment

I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.

<< Home