Interesting..... What is meant when we say treat others how you would like to be treated? What about the masochist?
I have not read the CTMU and do not claim to understand it. However, morality I do understand, and what a YouTube user calling himself CTMU SINGULARITY wrote about it in regard to the CTMU seems highly questionable, if not outright wrong.
The video is called Chris Langan’s CTMU, Explained in 8 Minutes or Less.
A user called Thule wrote:
Interesting..... What is meant when we say treat others how you would like to be treated? What about the masochist?
To which CTMU SINGULARITY, the uploader, responded:
This is a good point. By “treat others how you want to be treated” I didn’t mean that if you enjoy pain you should inflict pain on others. Instead, it’s an expression of generalised utility: we can usually find out an ethically correct action using the empathy and moral reasoning of the Golden Rule. How you ought to treat someone is a little bit more complicated than the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is the most basic and general expression of moral symmetry. Perhaps it should be “treat others as though you love them”.
The masochist, psychopath, etc. it’s also important to note does not escape judgment. We are all responsible for our actions regardless of whatsoever disordered desires we have.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Objective morality needs a law giver, and this law was handed down to us by God first via Moses receiving it into his own hands; and secondly, the law became flesh in Jesus Christ, who is the law. He is the objective law giver.
A psychopath does not even know what love is. Granted, it is not Langan writing here, but a rather young YouTuber trying to explain the theory. Still, it seems very fishy.
In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day rightly wrote:
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GOLDEN RULE
It is often asserted that Christian morality is no different than other ethical systems that are based on the Golden Rule. And it is true that one can find pre-Christian examples of the same concept in the Analects of Confucius, in the Mahabharata, the Dhammapada, the Udanavarga, and even the histories of Herodotus. Still, there are two errors in this argument because Christian morality is not based on the Golden Rule, and because the Golden Rule, which states that a man should not do to others what he would not have them do to him, cannot provide a basis for a functional moral system. Jesus Christ’s version of the Golden Rule, given in Matthew 7:12, is merely summary advice, not the basis of Christian morality. “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” This is practical advice given in the context of a general admonishment and it cannot possibly be the essence of Christian morality, for in the very same chapter, Jesus informs his listeners that “only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” will enter that kingdom. He did not say, “only he who does to others what he would have them do to him.” This mention of the Heavenly Father’s will, which also appears in the Lord’s Prayer, foreshadows the true foundation of Christian morality, which was articulated when Jesus answered an expert in Jewish law in Matthew 22:37:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’”
Obviously, a moral system based on loving the Lord your God and obediently submitting your will to His is a very different moral system and a far more objective one than the Golden Rule, which is not only entirely subjective, but incapable of accounting for either rational calculation or human psychopathy. It provides no moral basis to criticize a man for crawling into Adriana Lima’s bed unannounced so long as he harbors no desire to bar Miss Lima from doing the same to him, and sanctions a thief to steal on the grounds of a belief that he wouldn’t miss that which was stolen were the thief himself the prospective victim. The Golden Rule is also too easily transformed into the idea of doing unto others as you believe they wish to do unto you, which was the basis for the Holocaust as well as Sam Harris’s proposed ethic of mass murder in preemptive self-defense.
In another comment, someone called Basspuff wrote:
Since so many people are so incredibly immoral so much of the time, doesn’t that mean a lot of people will “go to hell” (or the ctmu equivalent)? Since nobody is completely ethical won’t all people be partially “reabsorbed”? Either way good video on the subject.
To which CTMU SINGULARITY replied:
I do think that there should probably be a different word than “hell” because it has too many connotations of eternal torment, etc. God does not require perfection in order for you to have a positive afterlife, but if you are incredibly immoral much of the time, then things will not go well for you in the hereafter. My thoughts on this are still developing, so I’ll probably make a video on this once I figure everything out. Thank you for your question and for your continued support and engagement!
All the best,
Tommy
For a Christian, it is Jesus Christ who saves; in the above-mentioned book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day wrote that with Christ, you were handed a Get Out Of Hell Free Card.
In an older interview, Langan, unfortunately, does not seem to think so. A quote from Chris Langan Interview - People Speak Radio (06/15/2014) (around 46:55):
Can we have a personal relationship with this God apart from the blood of Jesus Christ?
Absolutely. There is no doubt about that. You can interpret the entirety of Christian scripture in the CTMU. You can also do that with other religions, interestingly enough.
This denies, I think, the importance of Christ’s sacrifice. As C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
[…] It is quite true that if we took Christ’s advice we should soon be living in a happier world. You need not even go as far as Christ. If we did all that Plato or Aristotle or Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better than we do. And so what? We never have followed the advice of the great teachers. Why are we likely to begin now? Why are we more likely to follow Christ than any of the others? Because He is the best moral teacher? But that makes it even less likely that we shall follow Him. If we cannot take the elementary lessons, is it likely we are going to take the most advanced one? If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference. […]
The user Mitramon wrote:
Jesus is the logos, christianity is the language that best expresses reality.
Reply by CTMU SINGULARITY:
This is true, but I should warn you that the CTMU does not support everyone converting to Christianity, but rather shows that all religions share the same core structure and are articulating the same Truth ultimately. While Christ is a universal religious figure, and should properly be recognized by everyone as such, people will also recognize the spiritual insights of every culture and religion, not just Christianity. Christ is universal, Christianity is not necessarily. Thank you for your support and engagement!
Best,
Tommy
I do not understand what he means with Christianity not being universal; the Tridentine Mass can be celebrated in all parts of the world, be it Germany, Bolivia or China. Further, Europe was not Christian at all, the Germanic tribes were converted to it. At times forcefully, yet, it was a kind of alien religion that Europeans rightly accepted as the truth.
Further, the Aztecs sacrificed the hearts of some of their youth to the sun. Muslims kill Christians and so on. On what grounds would the CTMU reject such practices?
Now regarding suffering, there were two commenters with answers that need investigation.
cheekybastard99 asked:
How does ctmu reduce human suffering?
Reply by CTMU SINGULARITY:
“A global society that finally comes to accept the CTMU… behaves more sustainably and with greater resilience than a society anchored to a flawed, inexorably sinking worldview. It offers real meaning to its members, and is not disrupted by frequent descents into irrationality. And by encouraging intellectual competence and creativity, it has the potential to maintain a high general standard of living.” — Chris Langan
Thank you for your support and engagement!
Let me know if you have any further questions.
I’ll be happy to answer. I work for you.
Blessings, Tommy
Given how few are able to understand it, I doubt that it offers much meaning. Especially since it seems rather relativistic at its core. That a high general standard of living will follow is nonsense. This depends on the populace and its intelligence (its mean IQ and so on.)
Another commenter called Laaaliiiluuu wrote:
If life cared about a united mankind though or that every life form helped each other, why is it not already doing that? Why are animals or people killing each other if “GOD” wanted us to be behave good to each other? I can only assume that, if there is a GOD, he is not as benevolent as we think he is. I agree though that the best way to end up in “heaven” is to be authentic. But what if you are an authentic psychopath by birth? Slaughtering others for your own advantage might then actually be a good thing in the eyes of GOD.
Reply by CTMU SINGULARITY:
Chris Langan addressed this question in his prescient interview with Keith Woods. It’s a very difficult problem because it’s basically a recast of the problem of evil and suffering, theodicy: the vindication of divine goodness. What Chris Langan says is that this is the best possible universe because it is structured in such a way that we (as biological telors) can make this the best of all possible worlds for ourselves and for all other species on the planet and the laws of the universe (God’s “Universal Distributed Form”) are perfectly tuned towards this end.
This harmony, however, has been overturned. Even in the world of biological evolution, there is violence and cruelty which seems pointless, and human beings’ violence and oppression of one another, exploitation of the natural environment, etc. seems to betray that our world is not run by God but by something else entirely. Yet, Langan maintains, if you take everything into account, not only from the beginning of time to the present moment, but everything that ever will happen, from the beginning to the end, the alpha point to the omega point, this remains the best of all possible universes. And while animals most likely escape moral judgment, us humans do not: we must make this the best of all possible worlds for everyone in it. God allows for a finite amount suffering so there can be an infinite amount of bliss, a bliss freely willed by us human beings, better than never to have suffered at all.
And there is, by the way, an objective standard for morality. We are all responsible for our actions. The psychopath does not escape judgment. We all have disordered desires, but we need to get back to a place where we put God first.
Thank you for your thoughtful questioning! This one really made me think.
All the best,
Tommy
The Christian believes that the prince of this world is Satan, that this world is fallen. Therefore, while hard to stomach, the ills of this world would not make a Christian wonder. It is what we would expect if we believe the Bible to be true.
I do not understand what he means with, “we (as biological telors) can make this the best of all possible worlds for ourselves and for all other species on the planet.” What does this mean? It makes no sense. Even if we could, we never will.
His claim, “God allows for a finite amount suffering so there can be an infinite amount of bliss, a bliss freely willed by us human beings, better than never to have suffered at all” seems very bogus. Especially since Langan supports eugenics. Why care about health if suffering is okay? This is a blatant contradiction.
Further, writing that, “[…] we must make this the best of all possible worlds for everyone in it […]” seems very dubious. Why do we have (must) to? Very strange, too, to write that, “[…] animals most likely escape moral judgment […]”. Is this satire? Would God judge a turtle?
Of course I only live because of a wicked drive that did not exist in Garden Eden. It has to be this way; who would have children otherwise?, as Schopenhauer himself asked, a thinker Langan did not reject entirely (as he pointed out in his discussion with Bernardo Kastrup.)
Langan’s view on depression was disappointing already, and regarding “love” he showed how superficial and subjective his views are.
In his take on depression, he also displayed a lack of morals by supporting “dating culture” which did not exist in the past — you had to announce that you wanted to court a woman, and her father had to be asked for permission first.
I am not completely rejecting Langan, Tommy may not want to deceive either, though it just sounds like hogwash to me.
At the end of the video mentioned at the top, CTMU SINGULARITY claims that with the CTMU, the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth would be possible. This is surely wrong, as the Bible teaches the opposite. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
As an aside, another YouTube user called Gregory M. Wilford tried to explain the CTMU in his video titled The CTMU Guide for Dummies: Explained in Simple Sentences. There, he answered a commenter who took issue with Langan’s political views, including 9/11 and white genocide.
Gregory M. Wilford (rightly) did not give him much room, requiring sources where Langan ought to have said that. However, while he rejects the term white genocide since it is mostly used by those who are in favor of such outcomes. He pointed to South Africa where white farmers are getting killed on a regular basis, which would be a kind of genocide.
True enough, though Langan actually does see (correctly) the current trends of mass immigration into Western nations as a kind of replacement migration by world-wide majorities. I therefore do not understand why an example as obvious as mass immigration was not used by Wilford. It may be because of being afraid of getting banned or so. Still, Langan is right in this regard.
By reading their substack page, it seems as if they are into the cult of humanity. Of which I do not approve, of course. No one who believes in God, who is Christ Jesus, can.
For example, an article with the title Spoiler Alert: Humanity Wins! says it all. See also the escolios by Don Colacho below.
The following two articles are shady at best. First, Tolerance. You need to pay to read all of it, but the description is clear:
When asked what the most important message he had for humanity was in 1959, Bertrand Russell replied that we must be tolerant of one another. Tolerance is essential for a peaceful society, but gaining this quality is not easy. To achieve it, you need to understand your own values and respect the teleological values of others. Here are some tips: Take a nonjudgmental attitude; Recognize that others are different from you; Respect diversity of nonludicrous ideas; and Evaluate your own values to be sure that they align with teleology.
First off, Russell was a horrible person, he was a serial adulterer and a boring “thinker.” Why take anything he says seriously? Tolerance is not necessary anyway if we lived in a Christian society; the West is harshly divided because of worldviews having taken root that did not even exist in our societies in the past.
Using a metric as subjective as nonludicrous is not good enough. We need an objective law giver, who is Christ. I have hinted at this already quoting from The Irrational Atheist above regarding the Golden Rule.
This brings me to another post, titled: Our Sexuality Is Our Choice. It is not our choice, because God created them male and female. Sexuality is a curse from God for our disobedience, just like the drudgery of work. We could all lead celibate lives, but most will not. The description reads:
The sexuality of people is often an important part of their identity. It can sometimes be challenging and confusing, but developing and maintaining our sexual identity is also a normal part of life. During adolescence, people’s bodies change and they notice an increase in sexual feelings. This can lead to strong feelings of generalized sexual attraction. This sometimes very global attraction is influenced, heightened, and even manipulated by a variety of external stimuli beginning in early childhood. Understanding and bearing this in mind will help one to grow into his or her true sexual identity and make better dating and romantic choices throughout the lifespan.
Maybe the article does defend monogamy, but it does not sound like it. I do not have the money to pay for it, and do not want to either.
Apart from the fact that there never was much “choice” to begin with; not only because parents had a say in this, unlike today; in some cases, even the whole village attended the marriage ceremony. It was even part of the liturgy: should anyone present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace.
In an older article I found about Langan’s wife Gina, we read that she was twice divorced at age forty-three. At age thirty-two, she was married to a chess player fourteen years her junior … She also said she has a high libido and wanted to be a boy. Quote from an article titled The Smartest Man in America:
By way of a first-time e-mail introduction, Gina opines that highly intelligent women make the best lovers. She believes that her high libido and her high intelligence are both related to a higher-than-normal percentage of testosterone in her system. When she was young, in fact, she wanted to be a boy, refused to answer to any name other than Billy. These days, she thoroughly enjoys being a girl, especially given the man-woman ratio in her circles. Gina is currently the only female on the list of the top fifty American players in the International Correspondence Chess Federation. A member of the 1986 U. S. Chess Olympiad Team that competed in Dubai, Gina lived in Brussels for many years as a professional chess player, traveling the European circuit. Her second husband, an international master whom she married when she was thirty-two, was fourteen years her junior.
I do not quote this for wanting to smear Langan’s wife, after all, it is all freely available on the net. Of course, it is kind of strange that they talk about God yet do not seem to take monogamy all that seriously.
Further, I simply reject claims which paint sexuality in an overly positive light; or that we are allowed to date and have romantic relationships. I am especially upset about having been born, knowing that the reason I exist is a wicked drive into which not much thought, not even love!, goes into.
The reason I suffer and exist is repugnant. Far from being a spoiled brat, today’s sexual promiscuity is just awful and hard to stomach, especially given that it is our origin; it is, as I wrote, the reason I am forced to live this horrible life I never asked for in the first place.
What existed in the past was marriage. Full stop. In Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, E. Michael Jones tried to lay out how our societies were negatively influenced by perverts as regards sexuality. It cannot be denied that thousands of years, laws existed against such behaviour is seems to be common today. Even a Marxist and Jewish thinker like Günther Anders noted this in his two-volume work The Outdatedness of Human Beings. He wrote that the sex taboo that was at work for millennia had been overturned in just a few decades (or so).
In general, many of the articles are about well-being, health and so on. Topics that do not have much to do with God or eternity.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila tells it like it is:
Believe in God, trust in Christ, look with suspicion.
Our soul has a future.
Humanity has none.Fools believe that humanity only now knows certain important things, when there is nothing important which humanity has not known since the beginning.
The preacher of the kingdom of God, when it is not Christ who preaches, ends up preaching the kingdom of man.
Those who prophesy more than indefinite cycles of decline and ascent are hiding some suspicious product they want to sell for cash.
“The Kingdom of God” is not the Christian name for a futuristic paradise.
The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.
Even though they are full of threats, I fail to see anything in the Gospels but promises.
Christianity is an impudence which we must not disguise as kindness.
What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we matter to Him.
The particular creature we love is never God’s rival. What ends in apostasy is the worship of man, the cult of humanity.
The Christian knows that Christianity will limp until the end of the world.
Modern drudgery does not make it more difficult to believe in God, but it does make it impossible to feel Him.
Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.
Humanity is the only totally false god.
If we believe in God we should not say, “I believe in God,” but rather, “God believes in me.”
The cultural standard of an intelligent people sinks as its standard of living rises.
Without the spread of oriental cults and without the Germanic invasions, Hellenistic civilization would have initiated, with Rome as its starting-point, the Americanization of the world.
The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.
Happily, the world cannot be explained.
(What kind of world would it be if it could be explained by man?)