nemorathwald (
nemorathwald) wrote2007-06-19 08:22 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
The Alpha Male Monkey
I mentioned this essay on The Sci Phi Show and said that I'd put it back at the top of the site when the episode aired so the listeners could see the illustration, so here it is.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:

It looks like this:

We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:

It looks like this:

We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
Re: Informed Theists v. Blind Followers
(Anonymous) 2007-06-23 06:44 am (UTC)(link)1. The situation is totally different for a Roman Catholic, whether informed or not. Only a Roman Catholic truly follows an Alpha Male Monkey model, for only a Roman Catholic knows exactly what is the case: whatever the Magisterium says. That's not to say that I don't respect Roman Catholicism, for any Catholic who happens to read this. I'm just pointing out a difference in fact. The will of God is a much, much clearer matter for a Roman Catholic than for a Protestant or Orthodox Christian. Indeed, the will of God is a categorically different matter; it doesn't even make sense to invoke a difference of degree.
2. I really liked your post and would love for you to respond to my comment in some way other than to just say "reread what I wrote." I would really like to understand your point of view. Please show me where you think my analysis of the situation is off.
3. I'm Olivia; we met at Penguicon. You visited my blog.
4. I definitely don't want to persuade you from taking up another model, worldview, etc. I'm just interested in further talk bc I find your thoughts interesting. Given your background in fundamentalist culture, I feel it important to make this clear.
Re: Informed Theists v. Blind Followers
I'm happy to respond to you. It's not that I'm unwilling to engage the ideas the previous anonymous poster supplied-- It's that they are precisely the objections which I wrote the original post in order to address. So put yourself in my shoes; I saw that I had failed to communicate to him or her. It was not so much a post about morality as a post about a new metaphor with which to communicate successfully where I have always previously failed. And yet I saw a demonstration that-- at least with her or him-- I have failed again. He or she doesn't disagree with what I've said because he or she literally doesn't know what I said.
Just to repeat that one more time. The post wasn't about morality, it was about communicating with this person. I'm not even aiming to persuade any more! Just to create a shared dialect so that they can disagree with what I'm saying, instead of disagreeing with what they think I'm saying. I did not reply because I do not yet have a new way to say it. So I feel frustrated and unwilling to bang my head against that wall until I've given it another few months of thinking up new ways to make myself heard.
I also hope you will forgive me if I'm reluctant to participate in the argument among Christian sects which one is truly Informed. Usually I leave that to you and your co-religionists to fight over. When I left Christianity I abandoned that wild goose chase, and am enjoying the relaxation very much.
That having been said, I will tell you that I don't know how you can get so little from the scripture and not just throw out the whole religion. By the time I threw out as much bathwater as you have, I got to the bottom of the tub and found there was no baby in there after all. So I'll bite. Do you believe in a God who reportedly is intensely interested in getting a message across, and is powerful enough to communicate verbally, directly, and individually to every human, but chooses not to? Does salvation require that one learn Hebrew and Koine Greek?
Which body of writings am I analyzing to determine what ethic is best? Why would I do any such thing?
Re: Informed Theists v. Blind Followers
(Anonymous) 2007-07-06 04:41 am (UTC)(link)