What the Superior Power means to me as an Atheist

VNV Nation – Foreword (words)

“This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today or help build tomorrow for everyone.”

These words have great meaning for me. I hope to live up to their spirit. The question is, how is it that one helps build tomorrow for everyone rather than just living for themselves today? The answer is through obedience to the Superior Power. The Superior Power is what created you and created the world you live in; that created not only yourself but the people around you. Furthermore the Superior Power is what set the rules of how you should live and how the world around you works which in turn determines in what way you can best serve your fellow human beings.

The Superior Power has different names all referring to the same thing (in my understanding of things as an atheist). The Superior Power is God, it is the externally imposed moral order, it is objective morality, it is objective truth, it is the world as it actually is, it is the byproduct of the evolved inherited differences between men and women, it is reality not as we wish it to be but as it actually is.

For a more formal definition (from the TFAs page of this website):

“The Superior Power is defined as that which creates the order of life and imposes meaning upon life and determines what the nature of life is. Furthermore the Superior Power is external to human will and above human will and cannot be altered by human choice either individually or collectively. In addition the Superior Power possesses moral authority and therefore is an entity one is obligated to obey.”

For me the origin of the Superior Power is evolution. I have no objection to others who have a religious understanding of the nature and origin of the Superior Power; it is just for me as an atheist I believe the Superior Power originates from the process of evolution.

If you will allow me to assign human like characteristics to the Superior Power or God to facilitate understanding; why do I exist? I exist because God created me! This is a fundamental point. God created me to serve His will and fulfill His purpose. My parents did not create me, society didn’t create me, feminism didn’t create me, the government didn’t create me, and I most certainly did not create myself! God created me for one purpose and for one purpose only; God created me to serve Him and to obey Him and to further His purpose in the world that He created. That is the only reason I exist. To God I owe everything, God is the only One I am bound to obey.

Most atheists have a real problem; that is they lack a God concept. Most atheists have the very strange notion that they as individuals determine what their purpose in life is based on their own free will and that furthermore each individual directing themselves in self-chosen cooperative mutual arrangements with others provides for the common good and a healthy functional society overall. This idea is the furthest thing from the truth! People can live functional moral lives as self-directed individuals only under the condition that it is understood that self-direction is meant for the purpose of each individual best determining what God’s purpose for them is and then living their lives according to their understanding of what God has called them to do. In addition there needs to be a collective understanding of what in general God’s plan is and how God’s purpose for men is differentiated from God’s purpose for women.

My service as a man on behalf of women and children and society overall is first of all service to God. I serve women as a means of serving God, I serve children as a means of serving God, I serve society as a means of serving God. Obedience and service to God comes first and then service to others is derivative of service to God. I was created as a male and then in addition to being male I have a number of other secondary randomly chosen characteristics such as my location of birth, my race, my family relationship circumstance and my parental economic circumstance, and my particular inherited strengths and weaknesses or vulnerabilities. In addition to these things there is also the social and economic circumstance of the environment I was born into. All of these things together set the stage for what the course of my life will be and in what way I will come to serve God.

We each have free will but it must be kept in mind that free will exists for the purpose of allowing us to best serve God in the practical real world in which we live; free will does not exist for the purpose of freedom or self-indulgence. What free will means is that we can choose to be good or we can choose to be evil; that we can choose to obey God (the source of good) or we can choose to disobey God (the source of evil). By no means does the existence of free will mean that we as individuals get to choose what is right and what is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is fixed and external to us; right and wrong is imposed upon us, it is not something that we can either create or alter. We have no choice regarding what right and wrong is; our only power of choice is in whether we choose obedience to the right, to the good, to God. It is the choice of whether we obey God or not that determines what our moral identity is; whether we are on the side of God or on the side of Satan.

Of course there is the riddle of what God wants of us, what God demands of us; and it must be remembered that we as humans are fragile and imperfect and so can never live up to the ideal of complete and unerring obedience to God. If we could achieve perfect obedience to God we would be robots commanded by remote control from On High rather than the flesh and blood human beings derived from random chance driven evolution that we actually are. Indeed one could say that virtue necessarily implies potential sin refused; that what makes the good person good is precisely that person’s free choice to reject evil.

The effort to understand and then carry out God’s will is the great mission of life; it is the great heroic mission from which all meaning and purpose in life is derived.

For me promoting patriarchy, promoting traditional gender roles, promoting Traditional Women’s Rights through the vehicle of the TWRAs is my great heroic mission, is the way I can best serve and give praise to God.

The Superior Power or God is the creator of life, the organizing principle of life, and the source of the meaning and purpose of life. This is what the Superior Power means to me as an atheist. The Superior Power is how I can escape the trap of living for myself today and instead fulfill my real purpose of building tomorrow for everyone.

 
References:

The Meaning of Being a Traditional Family Activist

The Natural Order, Chivalry, and Traditional Women’s Rights

Chivalry Explained

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to What the Superior Power means to me as an Atheist

  1. Great post! It seems to me that those who live only for themselves and their own happiness are cutting themselves off from both the past and the future; they are cutting themselves off from the rest of humanity. In America, there have been so many good men-young men-who laid down their lives so that we could live in freedom. Until fairly recently, women often died in childbirth; so many women risked or gave their lives so that someone else could live. Our ancestors didn’t go through the hell that they went through so that we could just live for ourselves; the young men-younger than me-who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t do it so that we could be totally selfish.

  2. Pingback: Crazies on the internet – atheist edition | bodycrimes

  3. Charlie Pite says:

    I would assume from this that you were raised religious (like myself), and have some problems adjusting to life without the concept of god (as I did for a while). I think this is the problem with Atheism as an identity – defining oneself by what one doesn’t believe, as opposed to what one does. I am technically an atheist but (for reasons I’ll be elaborating on my own blog in a few days) I don’t define myself as one. It’s also a mistake to talk about “most atheists,” when what I’m sure you actually mean is “most vocal atheists.”

    I personally wouldn’t equate the natural order of things with a god, at least not in the sense that most people would understand the word. The difficulty with basing one’s morality on evolution is that evolution isn’t sentient and thus isn’t compassionate. We could conclude that murder is wrong because evolution wouldn’t allow for a species designed to obliterate itself through a chain of slaughter, but there are plenty of grey areas. For instance, rape might benefit the proliferation of one individual’s genes, but within group selection, consent is far more beneficial. On the other hand, so long as babies are being born, evolution itself gives as much of a shit as the desk I’m sitting at. Evolution can help us understand why we do the things we do, but it can’t excuse it. (It just so happens that I’ll also be writing about that shortly too, so I’m actually quite glad to have found this post as food for thought!)

    If evolution encourages one thing, it’s change. Progress, we’d like to hope, but not always. As far as morality goes, all we need is respect and compassion for one another. It’s the “Do unto others…etc” philosophy preached more than it’s practiced in most of the world’s most prominent religions. The problem is that by saying these rules are laid out by a god, you’re choosing to value his arbitrariness over a general regard for others. It’s a rejection of this principle, coupled with my own intrinsic understanding of suffering, that motivates me to avoid causing harm to others, even in cases where I might personally benefit. Yes, I am a result of countless years of evolution, but calling it the creator of life is like saying the marble itself sculpted Michaelangelo’s David. You also, when you talk about traditional gender roles, overlook the catalysts of evolution themselves – the anomalies. Evolution is in fact the antithesis of tradition.

    Nevertheless, interested to see where you’re going. I’ll be reading more.

  4. Responding to Charlie Pite:

    First off, thanks for your interest in my blog.

    I was raised atheist in the sense that my parents were atheist and never directed me towards religious belief. The problem was they didn’t really try to teach me any kind of moral system. Atheism leads to a great void in practice in the modern culture. Atheism doesn’t necessarily mean a great void in moral understanding, a large part of the purpose of my blog is precisely to communicate a moral value system that is both functional and consistent with atheism. Still in practice moral relativism runs rampant in atheism in the Western World today.

    I am a lifelong atheist and have never “come close” to believing in a literal God. Over time I have moved towards adopting a more and more pseudo-religious belief system however. I think the Christians are onto something in terms of how they put together their moral system with God (Jesus Christ) on top running the whole show. It’s quite brilliant really. Also it must be admitted strongly religious communities like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews have family systems much more intact than the nation overall and much higher fertility. In the United States in 2010 among non-Hispanic white children (from the 2010 Census) 78.1% lived with married parents nationwide but 98.3% lived with married parents in Lakewood, New Jersey; an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. So basically the highly religious seem to have an advantage in putting together a community that works compared to atheists. I think having a God to obey is the key to the advantage the religious have in terms of putting together a moral system that works.

    I did say “most atheists” lack a God concept and have a kind of libertarian view of personal choice and social relationships. This is definitely the impression one gets reading atheist websites; granted self-proclaimed atheist bloggers may not be representative of the atheist population. Still I think my claim is on pretty safe ground. The culture overall (in the United States), atheists and believers in religion alike, has gone quite libertarian in their social views and it seems safe to say that atheists on average are more socially libertarian than religious believers on average. So if atheists are even more libertarian than the norm and the norm itself is extreme libertarian (regarding social views, in reference to myself) I feel like my statement regarding “most atheists” is reasonable and on solid ground.

    I support traditional gender roles because traditional gender roles work and they make a lot of sense from the point of view of evolution. Men and women are obviously different from each other and in terms of survival of the species division of labor clearly adds to efficiency and therefore will create a survival advantage. You said “As far as morality goes, all we need is respect and compassion for one another.” No, no, no. I strongly disagree with this statement and it is a classic trap atheists fall into. Atheists tend to draw up a list of moral rules and then declare their list of moral rules to be their values or their moral system. Atheists tend to have a simplified and fragmented moral system that is not sufficient to the task of building or maintaining a functional community. Morality is complicated and interconnected and hard to figure out; it is not “simple” or “intuitive” or “obvious” like atheists tend to think. The God of religion provides the overall organizing principle that a functional moral system needs. Since an atheist doesn’t believe in God by definition I am proposing what I am calling the Superior Power to play the functional role that God serves in religion so that atheists to can lead their lives in a functional way supportive of community health.

    • LaFemmeAthee says:

      Traditional gender roles do not work.
      Pick up a psychology textbook.
      Men and women in traditional gender roles homes have less stability, less marital happiness, more infidelity, and more depression.
      Religion does not change that. Religion just makes it a religious crime to leave a marriage that is not working. That is not helpful. That is not beneficial.
      You are only looking at the surface of what religion projects. Not what is actually happening inside the marriage.
      There are tons of psychological studies on these issues. None of them show that traditional gender roles in any way contributes to better health, or happiness. It simply makes the divorce rate lower.
      Big deal. It means that more people are staying in marriages they are not happy with.
      That hardly is something worth getting all excited about.

    • Charlie Pite says:

      Thanks for the response, Jesse. I dropped off the face of WordPress for a while (despite promising at least two new blog posts in that reply!) so apologise for only getting back to this now. Just to address a few points briefly:

      Men and women ARE clearly different from one another, but beyond obvious physical differences, it’s near-impossible to tell the extent to which these are genetic or else influenced by deeply-rooted societal roles (that may or may not still be necessary in this century – different argument).

      The fact that an Orthodox Jewish community has such a drastically high rate of children raised by married families is hardly a sample size that proves anything. That the Scandinavian countries have such an unusually low crime-rate, despite being disproportionately atheist compared to most countries suggests the complete opposite regarding the religious keeping together a structurally sound society. And that’s with a far higher population/sample size than Lakewood, NJ. There are undoubtedly other cultural factors at play, and there is no grounds whatsoever to believe that the family that prays together stays together (unless their religion forbids them from leaving an unhappy relationship).

      I think it’s also naive to assume that a child raised by both parents is unconditionally the best thing. Of course it would be ideal in most cases, but sometimes a relationship just doesn’t work, and it would be foolish to assume that there aren’t cases where a child would be better off raised by two seperate but happy parents than two that are miserable together. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that two parents forced into religion-inspired archetypes would provide an environment more conducive to raising a child than two who are free to be themselves, regardless as to whether or not those personalities fit into the provided gender-moulds. I don’t mean to get too personal, but you did just admit that your parents didn’t teach you a moral framework (and from your wording I assume they remained together). Despite that, you yourself have put one together, but based on what? Were you really immoral before it occurred to you that evolution could fill the god-shaped gap in your life? Evolution does necessitate one thing – that a species won’t thrive if it’s prone to screwing each other over.

      You haven’t convinced me that there is a better backbone to morality than simple compassion. It’s inherent. Most humans have to go to great lengths in order to overcome it when called upon to destroy another being. Militaries have gone from dehumanising the enemy in the minds of their soldiers to creating increasingly more distant and impersonal methods of killing. The same can be said even for our animal-farming methods. Without compassion you can believe in all the heavenly rewards or eternal suffering you like, you will fail to be a morally sound person.

      • Men and women ARE clearly different from one another, but beyond obvious physical differences, it’s near-impossible to tell the extent to which these are genetic or else influenced by deeply-rooted societal roles

        You are setting up a dichotomy between inherited gender differences and “deeply-rooted societal roles.” Feminists tend to emphasize the “social construct” idea with the implication being that human society and relations between the sexes can “reinvent” itself any way it wishes. Traditionalists like me tend to emphasize the genetic differences imposing immutable gender differences idea which nobody can do anything about; we are stuck with patriarchy because we were born to be patriarchal, now let’s make the best of it. Religious people would say “it is that way because God made it that way.” An atheist like me would say it is that way because evolution made it so. Different theories of source but pretty much the same end result.

        I guess the reason why I say genes make it so is because men and women act differently, they communicate differently, they want different kinds of things in a romantic partner, the list of differences go on and on. From the point of view of evolution and evolved division of labor this makes perfect sense theoretically. Also society traditionally was patriarchal for a very very very long time; this feminism thing is a very recent invention. The most convincing evidence to me that patriarchy is “natural” is that social indicators related to family disorder were much much lower 100 years ago than they are today. This tells me that the past worked while the present is failing; meaning patriarchy is the norm and feminism is the exception. Patriarchy fits with human nature and therefore produces good family results while feminism is contrary to human nature leading to relations between the sexes endlessly declining. The statistics bear this out. Also feminism led to the big fertility crash where reproduction is below replacement level in the feminist countries and this is obviously against anything that makes sense in terms of evolution.

        The fact that an Orthodox Jewish community has such a drastically high rate of children raised by married families is hardly a sample size that proves anything.

        The “sample size” that says Ultra-Orthodox Jews are “doing it right” is huge. There are thousands of families in Lakewood, New Jersey that put together create the extremely high ratio of children living with married parents. There is no way it is an anomaly or accident that Lakewood, New Jersey with it’s extremely high proportion of intact families just happens to be Ultra-Orthodox Jewish. Adherence to Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is the cause, very high fertility and almost all families being intact is the result. The same kinds of statistics can be seen in the 5 biggest Ultra-Orthodox enclaves I am aware of (Lakewood being the biggest of the 5) and the same thing can also be seen looking at Brooklyn, New York and Rockland County, New York where large numbers of Ultra-Orthodox Jews live. The kind of social statistics seen 100 years ago in the nation as a whole exist today in New York City if you go to the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish parts of town. It is clearly the religious factor that explains the family success.

        You make an interesting reference to “two parents forced into religion-inspired archetypes.” You are presumably characterizing traditional gender roles as being “religion-inspired archetypes” here. What you need to keep in mind is that religious moral values are not something artificially invented and then “imposed” upon the religious believers; religious values are a reaction to reality, they are not something invented out of thin air. It is the atheists who claim that gender differences are merely “social constructs” who arbitrarily invent and create artificial ideas about gender simply because it “sounds good.” Long standing religious traditions on the other hand look at people how they actually are and then construct their religious value system to best fit the reality before them.

        You haven’t convinced me that there is a better backbone to morality than simple compassion.

        Religious value systems were created over long periods of time to fit the needs of the religious community as a whole. This is what makes them superior to what the random atheist invents for himself on the fly. Morality is complicated and difficult, it is not simple and obvious.

  5. LaFemmeAthee says:

    “By no means does the existence of free will mean that we as individuals get to choose what is right and what is wrong. ”

    That is highly false. And can stand up to no test in history.
    We do determine what is right and wrong. Society decides.
    Are you unaware that slavery was ok in most of the world? People finally decided that it was wrong.
    It used to be totally ok to sell children off to the highest bidder. We decided that is no longer ok.
    Morality is not stagnant. It has changed many times over the course of the development of society.

    This is a completely false attempt at linking morality to a higher power – whatever you decide to call that higher power. Morality has in no way been the same across cultures or across time.
    It continues to shift and change as we develop better understandings of what it means to be human.

    Evolution is not guided. There is no thought process or ultimate goal of evolution. It has had many dead ends. We just happen to be lucky in that we are not yet an evolutionary dead end.
    Morality is evolutionarily based. We have evolved to be social creatures – we stood a much better chance at survival if we banded together.

    Trying to use evolution as some sort of reason why men and women are not ultimately equal is old school. Like, seriously, laughed out of a doctorate program, old school. Nobody busy that junk science anymore. Neuropsychology, evolutionary biology, these things have taken huge leaps in teaching us about ourselves. It turns out, men and women are really, not that different.
    It is that culture tends to highlight the differences rather than the similarities. Culture. Not evolution.

  6. Pingback: The Decline of God and the Rise of Moral Relativism | Secular Patriarchy

  7. Will S. says:

    I see.

    You contradict yourself, as I suspected you would.

    You can’t be both a secularist, ostensibly atheist, AND a believer in a superior power.

    But I see evolution is your god. How fitting. I suppose your honesty is commendable enough by its own light, yet for all that, it’s still rationally absurd, and you can’t equate your ‘god of the gaps’ mad watchmaker processes with an actual transcendent being, who spoke all into being, and who has a mind, which evolution’s dogmatists insist evolution does not, being merely a process (and if I believed them, I’d agree).

    What my religious tradition says about those who don’t believe in the Living God, the real God, can be found at:

    Psalm 14:1
    Psalm 53:1

  8. OK, you guys are really getting deep into this, but what all of you are forgetting is, that WE are not COOPERATING with God’s words and laws and THAT is why it appears to not work. We want to control our lives, we decide for ourselves how WE want to be, WE want to live etc. Marriages dont’ work cus WE fail to follow the laws and words of God. Also, people dont’ marry for the right reasons, they rush into marriages. oh he/she his cute, let’s get married. Many of the rules in teh bible aren’t followed and so we find it surprising that marriages aren’t working, the family unit is broken and society is falling apart. The problem isn’t religion or God, it’s us and will always be us. WE think we can do it better and as you clearly see, we can’t. The problem is this cus we’re so integrated with secularism the religious are trying to appease both that society and religious and it’s gets muddled at times. God warns us of this all throughout the bible. YOu can not serve 2 masters. Christians would much rather serve God, but with these secular laws being passed, we are being forced to conform and disobey God. Cus if we do, we get sued, or attacked by society and the media etc, and I’m referring to the cake lady and the photographer, they refused to do a same sex marriage. It’s not discrimination, but what they are asking of us religious is far worse than any discrimination suit. They are forcing us to offend God. I say to you atheists commenting on here, study Christianity, and more important the Catholic Church. You will never understand why we can’t accept certain things until you learn it for yourself, much more than what you overhear from Catholics or media. Many Catholics, including myself, don’t live fully in God, so if you really want to know study the religion itself. Know thy enemy. :0) And who knows maybe your eyes will finally be opened and you will come to see. God Bless.

  9. Also ask yourselves this, in regards to evolution, why is there only one species of humans that made it. It’s rare to only see one dominant species out in the animal kingdom. I dont’ think we killed off any one particular human, I think we are quite unique to this world. I believe we were created. evolution isn’t the answer alone, it brings up more questions than answers. frankly it makes no sense to me, how these animals can change so dramatically and from nowhere. I was taught that animals came from dinosaurs, but I wonder how that was possible if they went extinct millions of years ago. You can’t evolve into something if you dont’ exist. I jsut find it hard to wrap my head around it. And us from monkeys, really?! lol

  10. Pingback: God as the Center of the Romantic Bond | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s