Posts Tagged ‘atheism’
Rebecca is an atheist … Even during Oklahoma disaster
Often people make reference to faith at times of natural disaster, see Hemant for that. There is a predisposition also that faith gets people through a tragedy, especially when we use the same language.
I do not how else Matt Frei, who long term readers know is one of my favourite Brit journalists based in the USA, quotes and uses Rebecca mentioned in my previous blog for his article “Big weather fuels big faith in Oklahoma“
“We are so blessed”, Rebecca told me as she was clutching her two-year-old son Anders. He was shoeless and dressed in a girl’s outfit.
It happened to be in the back of her car when she decided to quit the bathtub she had chosen for shelter, get in her car and make a run for it. When she returned to her house after the storm only a concrete slab was left.
A stranger’s car she had never seen before was on top of what used to be her bed and the bath tub was crushed and filled with debris. “We would have died, for sure”, she said with a smile on her face, ” had we stayed.”
As mentioned earlier on this blog Rebecca is an atheist as reported unexpectedly on CNN when Wolf Blitzer expected she would want to give thanks to The Lord for her family’s survival. She handled herself honestly and with dignity.
Have told Matt via twitter of the error. Maybe next time you are here in the UK Matt you can buy me lunch.
Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
CFI Women in Secularism opening remarks controversy
My twitter timeline shows a divide on whether Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) or Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO Center for Inquiry) are in the right regarding his speech. I was not there, but this may give you background to what people are saying. Of course the published responses may lead to a different view if we had been there.
In Washington DC The Center For Inquiry (CFI) has just hosted Women In Secularism 2 which finishes today. My twitter feed suggests great speakers, and panels on topics worth discussing for the $250 ticket cost of attendance. However, the opening remarks by CFI Ronald Lindsey left a bitter after taste at the event that kept some delegates chatting in PZ Myers room till the early hours. PZ explains:
the head of CFI, Ron Lindsay, chose to use the opening talk of the conference to basically chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave, and I’ve had more than one person tell me that they were irate that their introduction to an event that they paid a considerable sum of money was to be greeted by a talk that pandered to people who hated the event, and were volubly complaining on the internet throughout the day about it. The impression they had was that the organization was unhappy to be sponsoring this conference.
Rebecca Watson wrote her thoughts about the “shut up and listen” attitude where sometimes it is important to listen to the experience and expertise someone can give you than sound off your own gut feeling. You can read them here – it is a measured critique that does not go into ad hominem about Lindsey’s opening remark talk.
By contrast Ronald Lindsay response does not deal with those issues in feminism, like how transsexuals are treated in the movement, which Watson makes clear together with how feminist activists have been victimised into silence. He instead writes not on those substantive issues but his feelings:
But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)
The picture he paints of Rebecca is as a North Korean propagandist against white males talking about feminism, perhaps using twitter to get the feminist police onto him. Her article deserved not just more tact, but a recognition of the problems the feminist movement faces. Lindsay links to it in his article but makes no reference in his rebuke of her.
This is the extract from Lindsay’s talk on privilege and shut up and listen:
This brings me to the concept of privilege, a concept much in use these days. Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. In what way does it have validity? I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there are socially embedded advantages that men have over women, in a very general sense. These advantages manifest in various ways, such as the persistent pay gap between men and women. Also, I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that given the thousands of years that women were subordinated to men, it would be absolutely amazing if in the space of several decades all the social advantages that men had were promptly and completely eradicated. Legislation can be very effective for securing rights, but changing deeply engrained patterns of behavior can take some time.
That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. The concept of privilege can do some explanatory work at a general level, but in particular, individualized situations, other factors may be more significant. To bring this point home let’s consider an example of another broad generalization which is unquestionably true, namely that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetime than those who have only high school diplomas. As I said, as a general matter, this is unquestionably true as statistics have shown this to be the case. Nonetheless in any particular case, when comparing two individuals, one with a high school degree and one with a college degree, the generalization may not hold.
But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.
This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think the concept of privilege is useful; in fact it is too useful to have it ossified and turned into a dogma.
By the way, with respect to the “Shut up and listen” meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the “shut up” part that troubles me, not the “listen” part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn. But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.
By my reckoning assuming 15 words a line the above is over 600 odd words on the subject of privilege and how it relates to debate within feminism. Rebecca means both those things and not just those 200 words Ronald thinks. To quote Rebecca:
To summarize, Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements, an absurd idea I have never actually heard expressed by any feminists, but I suppose Lindsay and I travel in different circles. Lindsay doesn’t mention who exactly has argued this point so I can’t check to see why on Earth they’d think something so obviously contradictory to reality. It seems impossible to me that a person could be involved in modern day feminism in any way without noticing the lively and occasionally contentious debates among feminists about topics like intersectionality, particularly with regards to the fringe radical feminists who hold openly transphobic beliefs.
How should a CEO have responded? An article saying he wants to get to know the problems feminists have experienced with transgender issues and how secular organisations can stop the victimisation of women in the public sphere when debating. Then actually you say this but I meant that.
But no, he responded with scorn and anger publicly.
He is going to need a thicker skin in the job, and I am unimpressed with how he has handled himself in print given the serious points Watson raised. Rather than offer a private talk he wrote an enflaming response and now is trying to douse the flames he caused in the first place because of a critique.
Related Blog: The Critical Thinker Gives No One A Free Ride
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Critical Thinker Gives No One a Free Ride
There comes a point when we realise that being charming is not about agreeing with everyone or trying too. The last thing is to be someone that has absorbed the last viewpoint exposed to them in company, like a sponge sucking up any affluent soaked in for long enough, or a parrot regurgitating what your chosen master of thought has espoused without conjugating on it critically first. Be passionate about what you think as well as discerning. A Spartan of the mind looking for someone that can be the better opponent. Contrarian know thyself as well as the enemy.
New atheism is not a political machine where criticising each other is letting our leadership down. Whilst the secular letter suggested we keep our internal disagreements private if it was in danger of becoming uncivil with each other, debate is something to be celebrated and encouraged because nothing else sharpens the sinews of the mind so.
Exposing the Jehovah’s Witnesses with my own experience, for ruining childhoods and risking children’s lives for Bronze Age superstition over blood is important. Free thought was not only discouraged in the Society but had sanctions against it in place: shunning being a particularly unpleasant experience.
Islam needs critical examination, just suit up for the mud slinging of colonialist and islamophobic that follow. The legacy on slavery, how non believers are viewed and apostates threatened with death. Children beaten into memorising the Koran. Bangladesh atheist bloggers arrested. All issues dealt with on this blog. When it comes to twitter follow @CEMB_forum for how to truly take on the Islamists out there.
The idea that atheism leads to bloodshed – not communism – needs challenging because it gives birth to the lie atheism is a religion in all but name willing to murder those opposed as a blood sacrifice to it’s battle cry there is no God. Hence my argument on twitter with Peter Hitchens.
Secularism and pluralism
The one thing I keep coming back to is secularism being more important than atheism. Human rights, and liberty are part of the concept that the state does not enforce religion on citizens. Further, that people are left to their conscience by freedom of religion, thought and speech. Pluralism in action attacks the core of religious extremism, allowing us to be autonomous individuals contributing to civil society.
Yet the word secular has become synonymous with atheist. Atheism is a counter view that theism does not prove the existence of god. I don’t believe there is no god – rather I believe no satisfactory evidence has been brought forward to say theism knows there is a god. Religion knows not who this god is and what they want you to do on earth, nor what happens after death. To say you do know is conceit beyond arrogance.
For me secularism is the public issue compared with my atheism as a personal conviction. Many wear atheism on their sleeve in all public discourse for religion is at the heart of everything that needs countering as it becomes involved in all human decision making.
Yet in public policy debates the religious look out of touch, ill informed and human rights deniers when they play the faith card. I’m suggesting we don’t play their game in kind as atheists. When we stick to facts, research, science, welfare of citizens and human rights we are true to our humanism and more likely to win the public policy debate. Even Bill O’Reilly gets that is the lesson theists have to learn on gay marriage. Bible thumping is as ridiculous as faith bashing when talking about gun control. We have better trump cards when faith heads act as divine appointed spokespeople for their sky fairy – than saying back atheism is only rational logical conclusion.
We have to challenge the idea that religion is benign, that somehow if only properly implemented on us all would make the world a better place. That separate debate from a particular public policy matters because the religious impose their views on the rest of us without our consent. The four horsemen – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the late Hitchens were right to see this was important and to take it on. I honour the charge they made. The anti-theist attitude of Hitch was crucial not just because of the learned educated erudite oratory. It was not petty ad hominem, but took what was served to him by a sincere self-righteous speaker; Hitch quickly chewed and spat back at them the poisonous insidious garbage it really was for all to see.
Not rocking the boat by shouting steady as she goes!
I would like to see the OutCampaign website fully functioning and RDFRS funding research as was the original goal of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. I would like Dawkins to go for the belief without personal attacks on the voice of a rabbi sounding like Hitler, a woman wanting to wear a cross having a stupid face, and a Grandma speaking in grief being an idiot.
With Richard Dawkins the three recent critiques I have felt warranted – the Mein Kampf/Koran tweet showed an ignorance of historical context comparing the two works, the winged horse belief ruling out hiring someone as a serious journalist, and most recent calling a grieving Grandma an idiot.
This allows people to paint Dawkins as aloof, insensitive, rude – an angry learned professor lacking the patience to deconstruct an argument because believers are idiots. These are not the impressions I had meeting him multiple times when helping out at conferences, talks, and talking to him at restaurants and receptions, or hearing his public speeches. As I mentioned in comments when asked what he was like:
Very affable more a listener than a talker in conversation. For example when involved in filming an event in Oxford (with Sir Paul Nurse) invited myself and friends to a VIP reception afterwards.
Also, some people misunderstand when I criticise or dare to correct Dawkins (in fairness this is very rare). He welcomes that challenge, and knows how to defend himself if he disagrees. At a conference I was volunteering at, he suggested Americans should not get worked up about money having “In God We Trust” printed on it.
When delegates explained how that was used to reinforce the idea of America founded as a Christian Nation he accepted that, and changed his mind that it was worth pursuing after all.
I admire the writer, that intellect, how Dawkins shows intelligent design to be a fraud, and his advocacy of public understanding of science. I despair of the tweets and sound bites Dawkins has used, which even by his own admission have been ill worded and needed an apology. He is better company, and a better man, than this suggests to a wider audience.
Having grown up in a cult which controlled your every thought and deed, the freethinking community is a much better group to be in. I owe it to all to talk about my experiences, and share them in the hope people realise the impact faith can have on people.
Yet those faculties will also be brought to bear on my own side too, which hopefully may sharpen and refine our arguments, and make us more effective in promoting reason and science.
The debate is too important to stay on the sidelines, let alone be silent on. This contrarian will keep up the discourse. Being critical is not the same as being negative. As freethinkers sailing the sea of faith, we will plot our course. It is not subversive to suggest checking our bearings, and ensure we focus on the right targets.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Covering should not be cowering
As a man, who has never been a Muslim, it may be quite easy to discount what I have to say ad hominem discussing the hijab, attitudes towards wearing and experiences in US and France – until you realise that the Jehovah’s Witnesses I studied with have a head covering requirement for women. My perspective is based on actual observation and experience from a different background.
1 Corinthians 11:2-15
King James Version
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Based on this if a sister led a prayer with a brother present she had to wear a head scarf. Usually this practise did not happen because a brother would always lead a prayer. The one occasion this did not happen, was in my presence, a few days after the elders were happy that I was ready for baptism. The sister that was to lead my mother and myself in prayer felt obliged to wear a headscarf when I was the only male present before we did a home bible study.
Then there was the time years before when a ministerial servant felt my hair was too long, and that it should be cut shorter. To be on the safe side I went for a crew cut. That should keep me on the right side for a few months I thought.
These experiences feel ridiculous now – if a woman could be a prophet why could she not lead a prayer without resorting to a piece of fabric on her head to be the equal of men? Long hair for a man – a matter of culture through the civilisations rather than a matter of divinely graded measurement.
The worse that could have happened? Disciplinary procedures, which could have resulted in shunning and being disfellowshipped. That would come under apostasy for rebelling against Society teaching of scripture.
The link above goes into great detail regarding the whole process this involves. We can say that religion is a voluntary process, but the impact is very real when part of such a community. Even though I chose to leave before going through with the baptism.
The baggage is real, and getting out of it a new way of thinking. Becoming chess school captain, main actor in school play, vice chair youth council – these things would be seen as commendable for a young person to be involved with. It would have been frowned upon or not allowed with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Issues of free choice, and lack of compulsion are at the heart of thinking about specific laws to prevent coercion – for example wearing the hijab in public. It misses that women may voluntarily choose to wear such items. The sister at the home study did not have to wear – I was a child and not yet a brother – she wanted to do this as her expression of faith.
Religious freedom means for me you may voluntarily choose to be part of a faith and there is no legal remit to follow religious doctrine. You can ask me to leave your church if my hair is too long, but you cannot deny me the right to walk the streets with my hair long.
The ability to speak for change should be open without reproach, yet the sect provision means you will be out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses for daring to suggest Society is wrong, or could do with a rethink. We were told to wait regarding women entering senior levels of ministry – rather than discuss.
The laws of the land should protect women from reprisals that endanger them. Specific laws targeting specific religions aimed at a specific gender homing in on a specific garments – suggest peculiar special treatment. We need to think carefully when thinking of such a law the liberty of someone that freely choses to practise their faith or express cultural identity is not affected on our streets.
Sisters should be choosing it for themselves. That is the bottom line.
We can still challenge the ideas that lie behind misogynistic thinking as expressed by Paul.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A neo new atheist?
Theo Hobson in The Spectator has written Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists whose arguments will not be too new for those familiar with this blog. That Dawkins is crude (see Mein Kampf/Boteach blogs), creating caricatures of religion rather than looking at the religious experience that a believer has.
Hobson holds up a different sort of atheist thinker from those that brought you the literary success of The God Delusion and God is not Great. That of Alain de Botton who stresses the religious roots of secular humanism, and the human condition that benefits from rituals and community.
Thing is these ideas already existed before that – Sea of Faith stresses the human creation of religion but welcomes people of all faiths that value the practise and heritage in the 1980s. It started from a book, TV programmes to gathering of like minded thinkers.
No doubt we could go back even further. The thinking is not new nor is it a generational thing either as Hobson suggests which looks for complexity and nuance. Anyone that read Dawkins before The God Delusion knew this book was in him waiting to come out. It’s success blazed a trail for others to follow, and detractors a set of coat tails to cling on to.
Now the gravy train is looking for something new, a halfway house, and the spotlight has come onto others. I also think the death of Christopher Hitchens left a void that opponents are trying to fill. However, there is a new horseman in the form of Lawrence Krauss, appearing in a film with Dawkins out soon. The box office will tell us if there is still life in the old Darwin Rottweiler.
Thing is we atheists have never been a homogenous bunch. The herding cats metaphor exists for a reason regarding organising atheists. No one wants to be a follower or disciple of anyone. We have a non belief in the existence of god having been proved by theism – that is as much as can be said of knowing someone is an atheist. The sliding scale Dawkins uses of 1-6, and the humanist percentage quiz, simplifies a wide range of views on religion, the nature of a secular state, religious freedom, whether utopian or realist regarding the end of faith.
Where we are critical of fellow free thinkers, it is an honest debate over issues and how to debate. The hammer or feather approach. With others like Sam Harris, it is philosophical in nature.
The biggest problem is often a lack of understanding of religions and what makes people religious (beyond parents’ faith and geography). An impartial examination is in order to fully understand these things. That was what made it surprising that Dawkins had not read the Koran. If Islam really is a threat beyond Christianity to enlightenment values, then it pays to study, weigh and consider. To be as informed as you can be on the issue without necessarily setting yourself up as an authority.
As my blog states very clearly – condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Peter Hitchens Atheism and Communism
Peter Hitchens has replied to my critique of his blog as mentioned in tweets. In a nutshell he blames atheism for communism paying particular attention and terror to religion; with that atheism came a special zealotry to brutalise the religious and their institutions. This makes “atheism a bloodthirsty creed” for him.
My position is that Marxist ideology combined with the willingness to use terror by the Russian Communists, destroy pluralism and control all of society made religion the particular target of a totalitarian heart and mind state. Atheism was not the cause of the bloodshed but the terror totalitarian marxist ideology Bolsheviks espoused and brutally practised was.
The conversation on twitter thus far can be found here.
I blame the Bolsheviks’ means of keeping power and thought control as a terrorising totalitarian state for being bloodthirsty to religion, as their main opposition – with an enthusiasm helped by being anti religion. Peter, that atheism was at the heart of everything the communists did and terror towards religion the cause and end result.
The reason this debate between us matters, regarding Leninism and Stalinism, is that I have argued that theism or atheism alone will not determine whether you will act morally. I would not blame theism for the use of torture, or wars done in the name of a deity. That lies with those who did so in the name of their god and the religious ideas that said this was legitimate or just.
My argument would be similar with atheism. I would agree that Mr Bunker, in Hitchens’ original blog is missing the point when he says nobody has been killed in the name of atheism. Taking that line you could say that about theism too. It is where you go from these two ideas that things can be good or ill for the rest of humanity.
On that, Hitchens and I would firmly agree. Marxism is not the way to go.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Mistaken Peter Hitchens on Communism
Peter Hitchens has said that atheism is a blood soaked creed, and used some quotes to state Bolsheviks were atheists. He mentions persecution of religious groups and people. For him atheism is responsible. Not communist totalitarianism.
Which begs the question of belief for communists (the Bolsheviks adopted that term in the 1920s) and the violence the state used in suppressing people and maintaining the state as the supreme political body.
AJP Taylor remarked that Lenin realised he was in gangster warfare and wanted to be the right end of the shotgun. Terror was the way power was exercised on the populace in the revolution and beyond.
A new tyranny from god ordained Tsar to supreme communist rule had taken effect.
The communists were atheists, rejecting the theist argument. Marx saw that as a beginning in rational thought – a kind of training ground in philosophical thinking.
The idea that atheism then leads to blood stained communism is not one borne out. Communism in Russia was totalitarian, and no rival organisation or thought was to be tolerated. Pluralism was dead, and religion that demanded your obedience in thought, life, and in death was the ultimate challenge to Marxist ideology. The socialist workers councils tried to rebel, and were suppressed as were churches that stood up to the regime.
Would the communists have been less inclined to kill millions if they believed in a creator God? Doubtful: terror was the expediency and effective way to keep people in check and destroy opposition. The Soviet Union collapsed ideologically when Mikhail Gorbachev realised pluralism was the answer to a morally and financially stagnated bankrupt nation.
Hitchens can quote mine all the “communist are atheist” references he likes. We know communists were atheists. We also know they were anti-pluralist, anti-democracy, anti-free speech, non secularist, butchering murdering psychotic thugs.
Something for humanists not to be.
As I have argued atheism is non belief in god based on theist arguments, not a basis for working out morality or ethical behaviour which requires much other thought including religious/philosophical thinking that are a part of our historical discourse.
It is a mistake for anyone to suggest otherwise.
UPDATE:
Awaiting reply …
FOLLOW UP BLOG: Peter Hitchens replies on twitter
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Sam Harris – mistackles critics
Having seen Sam Harris misrepresented at an atheist conference, though fortunately in a Q and A so he could quickly correct and explain that no he did not believe in a soul nor that we should not be atheists (just do not use in public policy debate) it was about time he responded to current critics. The articles in question should you want more background are:
Glenn Greenwald: Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus
Sam Harris: Response to Controversy
PZ Myers: Head and Heart Atheists
All quotes from articles come from above sources.
My contention is Sam does well in parts, but does shoot himself in the foot on some key issues as PZ Myers mentioned. It’s an impressive looking tackle in flight till you realise the critics are still going to score. Largely because of how Harris wrote his thoughts on an unsuspecting public his clarifications really do not recover the ground well enough.
Say what you think
In debates with people on twitter I have been called a colonialist by some Muslims for suggesting that a secular state allows people to have their faith without anyone imposing religion or atheism by law on others. I have been told that being critical of an Islamic belief is islamophobia. This is nonsense. Discrimination and hatred based on someone’s faith, and treating people as a group not an individual would be. Criticising a belief or practise is not the same as oppressing a people. Sam observes:
The truth is, we have already lost our First Amendment rights with respect to Islam—and because they brand any observation of this fact a symptom of Islamophobia, Muslim apologists like Greenwald are largely to blame.
Remember we face this sort of view as tweeted by the Muslim Brotherhood:
Suggesting faith is a private belief not enforceable by the state on it’s citizens is enough to have insults thrown at you – at all times in public you must adhere to the faith. As bloggers in Bangladesh are sadly finding out.
Think how you say it
It does however become harder when you say things as Sam does on torture, far right on immigration making more sense, killing people for a belief. When you need paragraphs to put in context, even then Harris’ observations still stick out as uncomfortable reading. Take how he dismisses qualms about water boarding:
Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?
I suppose it is too much to suggest that those journalists water boarded once like Christopher Hitchens suggest a very different view point on using such torture for example in a ticking time bomb situation (link to Hitchens’ Vanity Fair piece on). Speaking of Hitchens his remark on Sam saying the far right only ones making sense on immigration “not while I’m alive they’re not” sums up a horrible line by Harris. With Hitchens’ passing others are making the positive case for immigration.
The military command hopefully aim to reduce civilian casualties – torturing a person is about applying the level of torture necessary to get information on purpose. That suffering is potentially limitless, deliberately intended and doubtful whether reliable or not once extracted.
Killed for a reason
Did that point a few paragraphs back where I mention Harris saying people can be killed for their belief sink in? It is a bold claim for one so quick to say their own first amendment rights are restricted by the behaviour of others. To quote Sam:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.
His following response to critics misses that we would still target a terrorist leader for reasons beyond their belief. They intend to organise further terrorist attacks unless hindered, arrested or killed. We would not ask what is their theological motivation when considering such action against them:
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back him alive? Absolutely not.
He is dangerous because he is a terrorist, and the leading terrorist at that. Otherwise, what Harris is implying is reading and believing the Koran could make you a terrorist – save for cherry picking, being less devout and secular. So belief is enough for suspicion and the use of state power against you (McCarthy suggested that on the left and Sam also uses such thinking for profiling too). In reality, religion is a powerful idea for hegemony and legitimising unthinkable suffering in the name of the old ideas of territorial conquest. Notice Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq calling for them to become one nation as part of a growing one empire – an Islamist one naturally allied and run by Al Qaeda.
Foreign Policy
Greenwald is right to be concerned that Harris believes Arab international relations is based mainly on devout Muslim literal understanding of the Koran and Hadith. Glenn mentions a particular quote of Sam’s:
“The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands — no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior.”
Polls suggest what we may expect; the majority of people are political animals and the Arab world is no exception, with a long history of the world being involved in it’s affairs. So before we say its down mainly to an ancient manuscript it may be useful to take account of history, sociology, economics, culture, and politics not just religion.
Sam while not saying whether Iraq was a good or bad thing mentions my concern that it was a distraction from other things (dealing with Afghanistan, nuclear non proliferation eg North Korea, Iran).
End of Suffering
Perhaps the real issue is Harris trying to rationalise what are on the face of it horrendous propositions: legitimate use of torture, being targeted for elimination based on your belief let alone extra security measures at an airport, the far right being more spot on about immigrants than everyone else.
PZ Myers makes a good point that new atheism should be empathising traditional humanist principles – key ones being an abhorrence for war and the suffering of others:
No excuse can justify nuking or torturing my people, so no excuse can justify nuking or torturing anyone else…especially considering that the United States has more blood on its hands than any other nation.
This is not the time to invent elaborate philosophical justifications for abhorrent actions — it is time to unhesitatingly reject them, to express our grief and shame and horror at these options. It is not enough to bloodlessly pretend it’s a philospher’s penchant. We need to consider the human cost, and weight that most heavily.
I wish Sam well as he studies further the wisdom of Buddhist philosophy on this point. It sounds like he has further to go for enlightenment.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Time for us all to stand together
The latest in Bangladesh is the government is not prepared to change the blasphemy law to include the death penalty, despite threats from Islamist groups to blockade the capital if this and other demands (including declaring a sect heretical and Islamic education in primary and secondary school) are not met. The deadline Hefajat-e-Islam have set for Sheikh Hasina’s government to cave in is the end of this month.
With violence, the forced closure of businesses and schools by strikes, not to mention the number of intimidating protestors calling for the death of the atheist bloggers it may be too much to hope the secular government may look to leniency. With a maximum sentence of ten years if found guilty of blasphemy through their blogs, it seems those that believe in freedom of religion, free speech and the humanist community have till the end of this month to show their support for universal human rights.
PZ Myers has blogged about what is happening and agreed with my suggestion we follow Hemant’s idea of having the Scarlet B flying on our atheist blogs. Gentlemen, may I humbly suggest that you include the Zapfino B permanently in your side bar? A small gesture in the face of a government determined to try, and an Islamist group to kill, the four bloggers thus far arrested.
In the face of that, what Myers says is what all of us are no doubt feeling:
I feel helpless in the face of this oppression, unable to do anything for people in a distant country who are being abused by their own government.
I mentioned earlier that Andrew Copson (Chief Executive British Humanist Association) was going to raise with International Humanist European Union (IHEU) about coordinating a mass solidarity event. IHEU have responded to me today on twitter when I was asking if @MrOzAtheist may know how to get a solidarity/protest event happening in Australia:
I appreciate efforts are happening behind the scenes and lobbying of governments. What I think would mean something also for the bloggers, family, friends and supporters in Bangladesh is a visible show of support from the international community. If world wide on the same day, liberty, religious (yes they too can suffer from blasphemy laws) and humanist groups could show solidarity outside the Bangladesh Embassy.
That would I am sure mean something. I am also thinking of direct letters of support to those incarcerated as well. In addition to letters to Bangladesh Ambassador protesting the arrests and asking for leniency. We can also ask the groups in Bangladesh what the international community can do to help. Maybe even writing to the Islamic groups themselves.
Will it change anything? Bottom line is we show our fellow freethinkers in Bangladesh that we did not throw our hands in the air but did our best to show solidarity with them and recognise what has happened. If successful, the balance of pros and cons the judiciary and government weigh up may take more account of international reaction to events.
How do you benefit? When people that thought, say and write the things you would were imprisoned you acted with empathy and spoke out. No one can be assured of their rights when no one protests or raises their voice to speak up for those denied. Solidarity is more than a thought, it is an action.
Otherwise you may as well get on your knees and pray, prepare to roll over, and be walked over, for all the good thoughts will do you in the face of oppression.
UPDATE: within minutes of posting blog IHEU tweeted me that members will receive email of campaign tomorrow.
UPDATE 9/4/2013 IHEU web page
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Video: Big Debate Islam or Atheism
Video of the infamous iERA hosted debate between Krauss and Hamza.
Enjoy the debate for yourself.
UPDATE: Timeline of Debate
00:00:24 : Introduction – Timothy Yusuf Chambers
00:06:30 : Opening Remarks – Hamza Tzortzis
00:32:02 : Opening Remarks – Lawrence Krauss
00:59:33 : Rebuttal – Hamza Tzortzis
01:14:28 : Rebuttal – Lawrence Krauss
01:22:43 : Summary Discussion
01:42:07 : Question & Answer Session
02:06:00 : Closing Remarks – Lawrence Krauss
02:07:50 : Closing Remarks – Hamza Tzortzis
Related blogs on debate:
Gender Segregated seating at Islam or Atheist Debate
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
