Nobody's perfect...

I was thinking about something that I wrote in a previous blog, the first one responding to Zeitgeist, and I think an interesting argument can be derived from something in it.

There are a few arguments from Perfection. One is the argument against the existence of God. It is roughly as follows:

1. God is perfect. (premise)
2. God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
3. Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
4. Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)
5. Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. (premise)
6. Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)
7. It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
8. Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6)(source: about.com)

Of course, the contentions with this argument are premise 3, and statement 4 from premise 3 &1. But that's not the point of this entry. Another argument from perfection is the argument for the existence of God(ironically). It is also called the argument from degrees. A rough representation is as follows:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.(source: Wikipedia)

The atheists' contention here is claim 3. Just because there is a state of maximum degree, that does not imply that an object(God) exists to fit that state of maximum degree (i.e. perfection). I agree with the atheists' argument on this. My argument will use similar thoughts to this one, however it isn't an argument for God's existence. I previously wrote:

In the film, they say that...we can never achieve perfection. Why? Why can't we achieve perfection?? If it is inherent in that we cannot achieve perfection, then isn't it worth saying that this inability is part of a universal human nature, and that that nature is flawed? Maybe the filmmaker would respond that we don't need perfection or that perfection isn't natural. As long as a system or product or technology functions then it's good for us. Well, if there was a product, system, technology or ideology that worked/functioned better than the first one, wouldn't you want the one that worked better? Of course. Why? What is the ultimate conclusion to the pursuit of systems or products that work better than the predecessors? The ultimate conclusion is perfection. The perfect product or system, one that functions flawlessly. The admission that perfection cannot be reached is the admission that there are flaws. It is the admission that we are flawed, and if we are flawed then we, our own intellect, cannot be the solution to our grand problems.

Rather than discussing a perfect system or ideology, lets switch to moral perfection.
It is generally stated and agreed upon that 'nobody is perfect.' This is a moral statement that basically means that nobody does the right thing 100% of the time. What's interesting about this is that even moral relativists will admit that they are not perfect. So, even if your moral point-of-reference is a society or...yourself, you're still not perfect because you don't do what you think is the right thing to do, according to society/yourself, 100% of the time.

My argument is against the belief that humans are basically good in nature, and against the belief that we have no human nature, only human behavior that is predominantly based on environmental conditioning. (Peter Joseph, maker of the Zeitgeist films).

If everyone is willing to admit that nobody is perfect I don't see how anyone can believe that humans are basically good. A response might be, "Well, we don't need to be morally perfect to be good." Really? Are you sure? If someone habitually does bad things but they occasionally do something good, then they are generally described as a "bad person," morally speaking. If a guy is a serial rapist, but he helps old ladies across the street and takes care of his family of four...dude, needs to be castrated and sent to prison because he's bad. To look at it in reverse; if someone habitually does good things, but on occasion does a nominally bad thing here or there, he would generally be described as a "good person," morally speaking. If I take care of my family and pay my bills, etc., but I lie on occasion on my tax return, and I've stolen one or two candy bars recently, then I'm a-ok.

However, is the person that steals a candy bar not just as much a law-breaker as the person that rapes women? The crimes might not be equal in degree, nonetheless both people have broken the law. Both have disobeyed the standard of behavior previously set. Both are guilty. Both are deserving of the appropriate consequences for their transgressions, no matter the degree. So, is the candy bar-stealer better than the rapist? It's an irrelevant question. The question to ask is; "Is the candy-stealer good?" NOT, "Is he good compared to the rapist?"...But, "Is he good?" The answer is, no. He wasn't able to adhere to the law, to the behavioral/moral standard. So, no, he cannot be defined as good. Therefore,...

• A state of moral perfection exists, even if no entity occupies such a state.
• Moral perfection is required for a person to be considered "good."
• Regardless of what moral standard a person recognizes, nobody fills this state of moral perfection.
• Ergo, nobody is good. There IS a human nature, and it is that we are all bad. We are all flawed. We are all screwed up.

Some would admonish me for such "negativity." First, so what if it's negative?? It's TRUE...objectively. The fact that we all die is "negative." Nonetheless, it is true. Is that reason to disregard it? I should hope not. Secondly, it is not so negative in light of the salvation of Jesus. "Oh crap, here comes the religious brouhaha." No, no, no...here comes the Truth. (Jesus said "I am the Way the TRUTH and the Life...") Yes, you and every other human are totally, completely and tragically depraved...you're bad...evil. It is indeed something to think about, something to mourn about, something to cry and toil over...for a while. To dwell on your own sin nature is to give it that much more power in your life. And THAT is what this is about...YOUR LIFE. Instead, how about realizing that being depraved, we have a need. We need help...you need help. We cannot be good...not out of mere lack of desire to be good, but out of lacking the ability to desire that which is good 100% of the time. And because we are sinful we deserve the proper consequences. The wages of sin is death. We deserve it. But God is merciful and gracious. He sent Jesus to take our punishment. He was crushed for our iniquities...It pleased the Lord to crush Him. Read Isaiah 53...no it doesn't refer to Israel! In v.9 it talks about the Servant suffering for "My people"...My people...God's people is Israel. How can Israel suffer for Israel? Christ suffered and died for us. For you, because we're not good. We can't be. But He loves us and wants us to not just know of Him (even the demons believe and shudder), but also know Him and be with Him for eternity.

Believe in what is true, because it is true. It will give you far more joy and far more freedom than believing only in that which is "positive" can EVER give!


Now to the other, slightly less philosophical part of the argument: Peter Joseph claims that a person's beliefs, desires, and basically the way he/she is, is predominantly determined by one's environmental conditioning. This claim is based on evolutionary theory in that the way natural selection works is that the organisms in a population of a species that are better suited for a particular environment are the ones that survive and pass on their genetic traits, whereas the ill-suited die and their ill-suited genetic traits die with them. The reason that the ill-suited die and the "fittest" survive is because there is only so much food/resources for a population in a given environment. So, evolution relies not only on genetics and genetic change, but also scarcity. And this is Joseph's claim. We have evolved over millions of years and through evolution have been conditioned in an environment of scarcity and this is why humans kill one another, steal from one another, covet another person's possessions, etc. Our desires, beliefs, culture, customs, sense of humor, it is all due predominantly to environmental conditioning.


I think this hypothesis greatly dehumanizes humans. If one posits that the environment is what predominantly determines our beliefs/desires, then he must submit to his own claim, and therefore believe that his own environment is what has determined his beliefs/desires. Yet, if we live in the same environment as one who has deviated from the environmental conditioning, then how is it that the deviant's beliefs/desires are different? Is there something in him that allows him to overcome his environment, and if so is that something that is special to him alone or is it inherent in all humanity? Is there something in him that allows him to see the truth of the situation while everyone else lives in a delusional state? It must be special to him, because if this ability to deviate from one's conditioning is inherent in all humanity then surely our beliefs and desires are not predominantly determined by the environment but we are able to 'grow out of' our environmental conditioning and make decisions and have beliefs of our choosing separate from the influences of initial conditioning. The mere fact that Joseph wants to convince others of this "truth" works against him. If people are able to turn from their conditioning as they are given more information or as they mature, etc., then how do you know that what that person previously believed wasn't also a result of that person turning away from his environmental conditioning? Also, how is him convincing others to believe this not conditioning? One's environment is defined simply by the people that surround him and communicate to him. Since, Joseph as he communicates with people is then a part of that person's environment any change of belief or desire that that person would undergo would then be a result of environmental conditioning would it not?

Man was not meant to be alone. We are to be in community and to bounce ideas off each other for the purpose of finding truth and to discuss even argue about beliefs and faith. Is this conditioning or is it iron sharpening iron? Mind sharpening mind? That truth of the matter is our minds are our own. In a mostly positivist society it is believed that the mind is what controls a human...mind over matter. I disagree. It is our hearts that dominate, and our hearts are dark. As previously discussed, no matter what you might want to do (in your mind) like wanting to be good, your heart won't allow it. So, it doesn't matter if our minds are our own because our hearts are dark, and our hearts reign. That's why we have a need for the Light.