Oh, Yeah, Big Difference!
Posted in Atheism, Gnu Atheism, Humor, Quickies on | 2 minutes | 24 Comments →
So I’ve been checking out the nice links y’all left in the Gnu Survey. In response to Charlotte Allen’s poignant article, Atheists: No God, No Reason, Just Whining, a self-proclaimed “angry atheist” named Landon Ross writes,
[Allen] is blind to her own argument as she spews vitriol throughout. The quotes she cites are either taken out of context, with some clever editing, or false altogether. Sam Harris is quoted as saying “that it ‘may be ethical to kill people’ on the basis of their beliefs.” This is a blatant misrepresentation. Harris, in fact, makes plain that only if one believes that the canon they subscribe to is the divine word of god, does it become ethical, or seem reasonable, to kill someone for their religious belief.
LOLOLOLOLOL! And the haters say *I* nitpick and split hairs! Friends, this is pure comedy. Nah, Harris didn’t say it “may be ethical to kill people” on the basis of their beliefs, not at all. After all, we atheists are moral! Respectable! We’d never spout a line of tribalistic paleolithic nonsense because by golly, we’re atheists, we’re modern, and we’re more evolved! Harris only said it may be ethical to kill people “if they believe the canon they subscribe to is the divine word of God.”
In other words, Harris said it may be ethical to kill people on the basis of their beliefs. In other words, Allen’s reporting was spotless, and Landon Ross confirms her depiction of your average atheist as a whiny hater spouting anger and vacuity. By the way, since Landon conveniently neglected to cite his atheist pal, what did Harris actually say?
Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them —Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53
In other news, I’ve added a Gnu category to TWIM. LOL!
dale
says...This brings two comment/questions
If atheists believe that God is manmade, then how do they account for the brutal savagery that was required for early homosapien and their predecessors to war with and vanquish their closely related, rival species?
Is Gnu Atheism writing their own Mein Kamph at this very moment? What an enlightened and free world we live in indeed! Sam Harris sounds like a bigot, plain and simple. Does he look good in a white hood?
Karl Grant
says...Glad you like the article, CL. It kind of reminds me of the recent debacle over at Dangerous Idea concerning hate speech and ridicule. I asked some of the Damage Control Squad once when they were defending Dawkins’s tirades did they ever think that people might be tolerant of atheists and more willing to listen to them if atheist wasn’t synonymous with asshole in most people’s minds. Their response? Some more insults and/or questioning my intelligence and sanity.
…..
You know, I think I should have added Inability to Sense or Understand Irony to my list of characteristics of the Gnu Movement.
cl
says...dale,
I’m not sure I fully understand the question, but given my likely-flawed interpretation, the answer I used to get was survival of the fittest, but then, the next question becomes: how do they account for the so-called “moral progress,” i.e., the trends away from racism, tyranny, slavery, etc. that seem to denote the postmodern period? Oh, well… we’re not dealing with survival of the fittest anymore. Convenient, isn’t it?
Karl Grant,
Yeah, I’ve been thinking a lot about ridicule and mockery lately… (to be continued)
cl
says...dale,
It all reminds me of eugenics and Nazism. The scary thing is, in the same way Hitler thought God was on his side, and therefore his killings were justified, Harris and the Cult of Gnu *REALLY BELIEVE* that science is on their side, and therefore their killings will be justified (to them at least). The irrationality is the same, just a different expression: one quasi-religious, the other quasi-scientific. With accepted scientists like Sam Harris laying down the groundwork, I honestly question whether we’re seeing the setup for the beheadings of the saints. Most people know about United Nations; hardly anybody talks about United Religions.
Peter Hurford
says...Survival of the fittest need not involve clunking everyone over the head the first chance you get. Instead, kin altruism — being kind to those in your family — helps greatly in getting your genes passed on. Reciprocal altruism pushes that barrier even further to potentially people you don’t even know. Eventually, when societies start forming, you need even more trust and niceness to ensure survival.
I don’t think I could condense an answer to this question into a nice paragraph (at least not yet). Currently, I can only suggest a group of books that all get at different aspects of the answer (see “Liars and Outliers” by Bruce Schneier, “The Expanding Circle” by Peter Singer, “The Penguin and the Leviathan” by Yochai Benkler, “Evolutionary Origins of Morality” by Leonard D Katz, “The Origins of Virtue” by Matt Ridley, “The Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker, and “Wild Justice” by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce). It’s no where near as easy to say as “God did it”, but it’s definitely a massive attempt at an answer.
Crude
says...It’s no where near as easy to say as “God did it”, but it’s definitely a massive attempt at an answer.
It’s a massive attempt maybe in terms of the number of words written, but beyond that it gets into evolutionary psychology – explaining things by telling stories, gesturing a bit, and saying “Anyway, maybe something like that happened.” It’s actually an awful lot like “God did it”.
You should have a look at Jerry Fodor’s “What Darwin Got Wrong”. And not just the reviews, but the book itself.
Johnny Buoy
says...Using his logic, a persuasive argument can be made that it would be ethical to kill Sam Harris for believing it would be ethical to kill some people for their beliefs.
cl
says...Johnny Buoy,
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Karl Grant
says...Johnny Buoy,
You’re not the first to notice that. I have asked several atheists that isn’t it ethical to kill Harris as a form of preemptive self-defense, as both the United States’ law codes and several theologians and philosophers agree that using lethal force when your life is in danger is permissible and Harris has already stated he believes it is ethical to kill me and other Christians merely because we hold a different set of beliefs and opinions than him? Are we simply to sit around and wait until Harris or one of his followers works up enough courage to turn that belief into reality? And by the way, isn’t making death threats frowned upon by law enforcement agencies?
Let’s just say the results were not pretty.
dale
says...cl,
I’d question whether we aren’t still. If it is deemed necessary for someone to be killed for their thoughts, then their thoughts must be a danger to others; so by killing them, the survival of the society is supposedly being put forward as the priority, not individual liberty.
Really, with this type of thinking, we are de-evolving back into a Darwinian, survival of the fittest world. It’s just dressed up in neat and tidy, pseudo intellectualism and scientific jargon.
In hind sight, there’s something respectable about a chimp bashing the brains of a monkey in, even if it’s for spot. It’s more honest. No, false images of ethic or morality, just me first and you r.i.p.
Gotta love the moral, ethical progress “rational logic” has given us.
Peter Hurford
says...While evolutionary psychology is not yet robustly established science, it is better established than story telling, gesturing, or speculation. I think you are selling these responses short.
~
I’ll look into it.
Thinking Emotions
says...A lot of, and I’d wager most of, Darwin’s original theory is totally bunk. Another great book that is along the lines of what Crude recommended: Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth. It’s completely nonpartisan and interesting to boot; a Harvard lawyer analyzes the arguments of Darwinism and concludes they do not logically hold up. The writer had no formal ties to the field of biology in any way, so it’s a fearless and rugged evaluation. Great stuff. I actually picked the book up when I was out with my very non-atheist girlfriend one day and we stopped past a library that was cleaning out its shelves and giving away “old” books. I wasn’t expecting to find anything particularly enlightening among all the harlequin romance garbage, but I was relieved when I stumbled upon a book that was worthwhile.
My recommendation was probably excessive, but I figured Peter might want something atheist (more like agnostic nowadays) approved. ;)
Thinking Emotions
says...Sorry to double post, but it’s worth mentioning that Fodor is an atheist. I have no idea about Macbeth, but I doubt he was Christian.
Peter Hurford
says...Thanks for the recommendation!
cl
says...TE,
Fixed. You win the award for laugh of the day with this line:
LOL!
cl
says...TE,
Yes, I agree with you RE Darwin’s theory being mostly bunk. The fossil record did not yield the myriad transitional fossils he predicted, not to mention the complications related to Mendel’s discoveries. The so-called “Cambrian Explosion” is completely incompatible with Darwinism. This, of course, is why we’ve got punctuated equilibrium—which, to me—reeks highly of special creation.
Peter Hurford
says...More on Moral Progress and Evolutionary Psychology
I think this talk (YouTube) is pretty good at explaining some of the recent science (moral and evolutionary psychology) of it.
C.L. Dyck
says...cl,
Just had to say thank you for the laugh-out-loud moment. Oh, my word. :)
~Cathi-Lyn
cl
says...C.L. Dyck,
Well thank you much. I was laughing out loud as I wrote it, so I know where you’re coming from.
Thinking Emotions
says...Oh yeah, I missed this on my first read, so I guess I’ll comment again.
Emphasis mine. Really, man? You’d kick any atheist in the balls for stating such a juvenile generalization. Imagine if Peter or I would state something like, “(insert uneducated Christian here) confirms the depiction of your average Christian as a whiny hater spouting fallacies and bigotry.” You’ve been getting cocksure lately it seems, so I think it’s time to start calling you out. Nothing personal, of course.
cl
says...TE,
Yes, really.
Oh really? What juvenile generalization might that be?
Oh that’s fair [/sarcasm]. For one, here is the full quote in question:
Not only did you omit a pertinent part of my quote, you changed it! See how you switched to “the” from my “her?” Big mistake. I chose “her” over “the” precisely to emphasize that Ross ironically confirmed *HER* — as in Allen’s — depiction of your average atheist as a whiny hater spouting anger and vacuity. C’mon TE! Ross stated himself that he *WAS* angry. My post proved Ross’ defense of Harris *WAS* vacuous. You can’t deny that Ross confirmed her depiction. You just can’t.
My experiences confirm Allen’s. Like I explained in the other discussion, most of the atheists I encounter are like Meyers / Dawkins / Carrier / Coyne / Ross et al. Why does that offend you so much, especially since you take steps to distance yourself from atheists? More importantly, have I committed some egregious moral error by simply stating that my experiences track with Allen’s? Seriously. If I’ve actually screwed up here, by all means let me have it. Don’t try to paint me as sitting on some high horse when you know damn well that I make concessions.
I think *YOU* have been too cocksure in what you *THINK* I’m saying, and as this comment and the other should demonstrate, I’m clean as a whistle here (sorry, had to throw that in just for TFB’s sake, his lines are getting a little canned).
I know, same here. Let’s get past this hump and have more productive discussions.
Crude
says...cl,
A bit off-topic, but I thought you’d have fun with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mLHdTsmPc
cl
says...Crude,
LOL!
Poor Thunderfoot just found out what I’ve been saying all along: the “freethought” blogging forum is a hypocritical sham. It’s really about atheist groupthink, plain and simple. In fact, this gives me an idea. How receptive do you think they’d be if a self-described “agnostic theist” were to ask for a spot in the lineup? After all, if it’s really about freethought, why not diversify a little bit? What do you think they’d say?
Thinking Emotions
says...cl, dunno how often you check your e-mail, but I responded there.