I have a running discussion with a couple friends who love C.S Lewis. I usually refer to Lewis as a mad at God atheist. I haven't thoroughly read Lewis, but from The Problem of Pain and other excepts of Lewis' work, Lewis doesn't present the best atheist ideas, maybe he does this intentionally.
For my friends, below is an except from a Christian who has an excellent understanding of atheism. This except is from Book 5, Chapter 1, of War and Peace. Pierre, one of the wealthiest people in Russia in the story, has recently separated with his wife after shooting her suspected lover in a duel.
Pierre's atheism at the moment is one of depression, desperation, and despair. I don't mean to suggest that this is what atheism is. Atheist are as diverse ideological as any other group. In fact atheists as a group are probably more diverse because you have atheist coming from all religions and beliefs, and atheists do not have any texts that are essential to their disbelief in a God.
Pierre is waiting at a poststation in Torzhok:
The postmaster, his wife, the valet, and a peasant woman selling Torzhók
embroidery came into the room offering their services. Without changing
his careless attitude, Pierre looked at them over his spectacles unable to
understand what they wanted or how they could go on living without having
solved the problems that so absorbed him. He had been engrossed by the
same thoughts ever since the day he returned from Sokólniki after the duel
and had spent that first agonizing, sleepless night. But now, in the
solitude of the journey, they seized him with special force. No matter
what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions which he
could not solve and yet could not cease to ask himself. It was as if the
thread of the chief screw which held his life together were stripped, so
that the screw could not get in or out, but went on turning uselessly in
the same place.
The stripped screw metaphor is perfect. There is a deep philosophical idea, and the idea keeps one stuck in place. Always coming back to these same questions. Unable to accept or deny them, just stripped. Tolstoy continues:
The postmaster came in and began obsequiously to beg his excellency to
wait only two hours, when, come what might, he would let his excellency
have the courier horses. It was plain that he was lying and only wanted to
get more money from the traveler.
“Is this good or bad?” Pierre asked himself. “It is good for me, bad for
another traveler, and for himself it’s unavoidable, because he needs money
for food; the man said an officer had once given him a thrashing for
letting a private traveler have the courier horses. But the officer
thrashed him because he had to get on as quickly as possible. And I,”
continued Pierre, “shot Dólokhov because I considered myself injured, and
Louis XVI was executed because they considered him a criminal, and a year
later they executed those who executed him—also for some reason.
What is bad? What is good? What should one love and what hate? What does
one live for? And what am I? What is life, and what is death? What power
governs all?”
Pierre isn't confident in his atheism. Tolstoy is setting up Pierre for a conversion. It's as if Tolstoy is begging the question with Pierre. Tolstoy continues:
There was no answer to any of these questions, except one, and that not a
logical answer and not at all a reply to them. The answer was: “You’ll die
and all will end. You’ll die and know all, or cease asking.” But dying was
also dreadful.
Here is where Tolstoy shines. The narrator steps in with an objective look. There are two options: something or nothing. Tolstoy continues:
The Torzhók peddler woman, in a whining voice, went on offering her wares,
especially a pair of goatskin slippers. “I have hundreds of rubles I don’t
know what to do with, and she stands in her tattered cloak looking timidly
at me,” he thought. “And what does she want the money for? As if that
money could add a hair’s breadth to happiness or peace of mind. Can
anything in the world make her or me less a prey to evil and death?—death
which ends all and must come today or tomorrow—at any rate, in an
instant as compared with eternity.” And again he twisted the screw with
the stripped thread, and again it turned uselessly in the same place.
His servant handed him a half-cut novel, in the form of letters, by Madame
de Souza. He began reading about the sufferings and virtuous struggles of
a certain Emilie de Mansfeld. “And why did she resist her seducer when she
loved him?” he thought. “God could not have put into her heart an impulse
that was against His will. My wife—as she once was—did not
struggle, and perhaps she was right. Nothing has been found out, nothing
discovered,” Pierre again said to himself. “All we can know is that we
know nothing. And that’s the height of human wisdom.”
Everything within and around him seemed confused, senseless, and
repellent. Yet in this very repugnance to all his circumstances Pierre
found a kind of tantalizing satisfaction.
This isn't the best conclusion for atheism, but it feels more authentic than Lewis. The problem I had was Lewis using atheism to make arguments for Christianity. That's all good and well for Christians, but not for atheists. Tolstoy, although a devout Christian, is more concerned with capturing the psychology and complexity of his characters. Tolstoy's characters convert, like Lewis: the atheist become Christians. But I believe Tolstoy's characters! Lewis seems like a teenager who was mad at God and left his faith for a while.
Maybe this is my bias. Tolstoy captures my ideas about humanity, and I dislike Lewis'. If one was going to change my perspectives they'd need to have a Tolstoy approach, not a Lewis approach.
“From the child of five to myself is but a step. But from the new-born baby to the child of five is an appalling distance,” said Tolstoi once. Here, in the decisive moments of existence, when man first becomes man and realizes his immense loneliness in the universal, the world-fear reveals itself for the first time as the essentially human fear in the presence of death, the limit of the light-world, rigid space. Here, too, the higher thought originates as meditation upon death. Every religion, every scientific investigation, every philosophy proceeds from it. Every great symbolism attaches its form-1language to the cult of the dead, the forms of disposal of the dead, the adornment of the graves of the dead." Oswald Spangler's The Decline of the West
"You cannot deduce a moral judgement from facts about the natural world," says Peter Singer in agreement to the is/ought problem.
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason." David Hume A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)
So how is one to decide a moral judgement?
According to philosophers, like David Hume or Peter Singer, one needs to use more formal logic to deduce a conclusion. One can use facts. One can make arguments. But one shouldn't suggest, as Hume might state, that because x is, or is not, that y ought, or ought not, be done.
I'm not sure anyone who deduces moral judgements will accept this, but if you're open to the idea, leave a comment and I can say more.
If Gotham is such a terrible place to live, why do people live there?
From a group chats: "[The Batman (2022)] made me really afraid of Gotham. It’s the worst fucking place to grow up. Can you imagine growing up in a space with no possibility?" "Very rich, very poor, and no in between."
I agree based off movies and comics, Gotham appears to be a city with zero opportunities for its people. But is that possible?
Sure, it's possible. But a zero opportunity Gotham is so unlikely, the ideas shouldn't be considered.
Too lazy to read? Watch the below YouTube video of the article produced by Kier Gomes.
Gotham City
Gotham City is mostly observed from Batman's point of views, with The Joker and Harley Quinn the top two alternatives. Batman sleeps all day, and stays up all night fighting and tracking criminals. Viewers see a very biased view of Gotham City.
Off screen, during normal human waking hours, Gotham should be a lot more like NYC, Chicago, or other large cities. Lots of people, lots of businesses, lots of problems, but also lots of opportunity, along with the crime and corruption that makes Gotham infamous. Gotham is going to have safe and affluent areas that Batman and viewers never see.
"Gotham
City is a major economic center within the United States of the DC
Multiverse; its important industries include: manufacturing; shipping;
finance; fine arts, represented by its numerous museums, galleries, and
jewelers; and the production of giant novelty props. In addition to its
commercial seaport, it also supports a naval shipyard.
Major
businesses based in Gotham City include its most noteworthy corporation:
Wayne Enterprises, which specializes in various industrial aspects and
advanced technological research and development."
Even if the Gotham City was run by criminals profiting from the exploitation of its people, there has to be people with capitol (money or assets) to exploit. Gotham doesn't have slavery and it isn't post apocalyptic. The streets are crowded with people. The bridges are functioning and full of cars. There are skyscrapers. Even if criminals own most of the buildings, they are renting them to companies and people. Companies need employees to run their operations. Those employees need places live, places to eat, places to shop, places to send their offspring while they work, places to get medical attention, places to be safe, etc.
You can't make money without people. These companies can't survive or
succeed without a working/middle class to run the operations. Gotham
City has to have something to offer companies, and part of it has to be a
working class. In return those companies have to offer something for
employees.
It's possible Gotham City's corruption could turn
Gotham into a tax haven for corporations. In that case, the largest
corporations wouldn't employ many people. But that doesn't explain where
all the people on the streets, subways, and bridges are going.
It
is more likely that Gotham, especially based on the wiki information,
has a large working and middle class with time and money to spend on the
industries mentioned.
If there weren't opportunities for people in Gotham, the working and middle class, along with the business sectors would leave Gotham City for better prospects. Gotham is a dangerous place to live. In order to take on the risks of living, commuting, and working in Gotham, people and businesses need more than money. They need opportunities, entertainment, culture, and all the aspects of urban life that attract people to cities.
An entrepreneur isn't going to attempt starting a business in Gotham if their isn't potential profits to out weight the risks and stress of dealing with corruption and crime. Existing companies would face a similar choice.
Analogy: Wade School has a bully who is stealing student's lunch money everyday. Students get $5 for lunch, and the bully takes $3, so students are left with $2 for lunch each day. Students find out that there is another school, Wilson School, they can to attend. Wilson School will cost students $1 day to attend, and Wilson School's bully is nicer, he only takes $1 each day from students' (the bullyees?) lunch money. If students move schools they'll profit $1 each days, $3 instead of $2. Assuming a students main priority is having the most lunch money (a businesses' profits in this analogy), rational students will move to Wilson School. That's exactly what Gotham businesses would do.
If Gotham is as corrupt and dangerous as it appears, there must be a lot of money to be made for multiple classes of people. Money is the reason why people risk their lives and integrity to live and work in Gotham. Otherwise, most people wouldn't take the risk. Think of a recent high school or college graduate, why would they stay in Gotham or migrate to Gotham? Why not move to a safe prosperous cities that doesn't host a comic book series worth of villains and crime?
If at some point Gotham became too corrupt and dangerous, people and companies would flea and Gotham would soon collapse.
There are correlations between inequality and murder rates in US cities. And Gotham is constantly described with growing crime, it is safe to assume Gotham has large inequities. So,first conclusions: Gotham City is showing negative affects of extreme inequality, like crime, violence, poverty, and corruption. Second conclusion: Although likely in economic decline, Gotham has opportunities for working, middle, and upper classes. Third conclusion: Gotham needs a large middle class to sustain its title of "major economic center."
Inequality in Gotham City
Gini coefficient, or gini index, is an interesting measure of inequality. Although gini indexes are used to measure a variety of inequalities, the gini index most commonly measures wealth or income inequalities, income being a lot easier to measure. The gini index alone is not a useful or accurate stat. But combined with other measures and looking at the Lorenz Curve below, it gives a more complete view.
A gini index of 1.0 means one person possesses everything. A gini index of 0.0 means all people possess the same exact amount.
The first chart is a list of the highest gini indexes in the US. The second chart compares the lowest 20% of people's income, middle 60% of people's income, and highest highest 20% of people's income.
One thing to consider, the US Census data does not account for people who
live in different cities and commute to work. If most higher wage earners in NYC live in New Jersey, that gives a misleading gini index of the greater area as a whole.
Lorenz curves are more complete visuals of inequalities. The below lorenz curve visualizes how inequality increases as the curved lines move further away from the linear green "equal wealth" line.
Below visualizes one of the limitation of the gini index. Populations with an equal gini indexes can, and will, have different distributions at the tops and bottoms of their populations. Both curves below have a gini index of 0.6. But the peach curve has ~25% of their lowest earners making very close to 0 income. And the blue curve has about ~10% of its highest earners making over 50% of the income. When the blue curve is linear (a straight line) that means all those people are making the same amount. The peach curve is displaying that higher earners make more and more. (pause to examine the two graphs and conceptualize the differences).
So what is Gotham City's gini index and lorenz curve?
This question depends on a lot of economic factors that Batman stories do not provide. Where do most people live in Gotham? How segregated are the different classes of people in Gotham and the surrounding areas? How many workers in Gotham commute from another city or suburb?
Gotham has to have at least one of the following, or both, for its middle and working classes:
nice parts of the city
safe places to live outside, but within, commuting distance of Gotham City.
It is possible that Gotham City could be all "very rich, very poor, and no in between," but only if practically all of the workers live outside of Gotham City.
Fourth conclusion: Gotham City's working/middle class live within the Gotham area.
How Much Inequality is Possible before Gotham collapses?
At what point would a city economically collapse from inequality?
If people were too poor to buy anything, the rich would start to lose their wealth and income by supporting the poor. South Africa consistently is reported as the country with the highest gini index for income, around 0.63, higher than any US city. But even with all South Africa's corruption and racism, their gini index drops when adjusted for social welfare (I didn't find a good source for this, but I think the idea is worth considering even if it might not be 100% accurate).
Globally, the gini indexes are calculated to be as high or higher than South Africa's, between 0.6-0.7.
If we go look at the countries with economies that collapsed, wars, political unrest, and unstable institutions are the primary factors. These factors could be influenced by inequalities in wealth, but they don't seem to be the main causes.
This question, "how much inequality is possible," requires a lot more rigorous analysis and economical understanding than I hoped. If an economist has studied this question, I was unable to find their work yet.
How could Gotham economically collapse from income/wealth inequality? It's an interesting thought experiment.
At some unknown inequality, companies will lose too much money. They'll either move, go out of business, or barely survive. As businesses go bankrupt and move to other cities, more rentals will be vacant. The vacancies will drive down the cost of rent. Can could bring more poor people to the low rents and sustain or increase inequality more. But at some point, investors will want to return to make money...
In a globally or even nationally connected society, it's hard to see a situation with all rich and all poor people living together without a middle class.
Detroit is the best example of a collapsed economy in the US. Detroit isn't in the top 10 US cities. I'm speculating now, but where are their rich people? Did they stay or did they go? When opportunities decline for most people, that's not good for business.
At some point inequality is bad for business, and rich people leave, making an area more equal. Fifth conclusion: Gotham will most likely never reach a point of rich people having everything and poor people havnig nothing.
