In this gospel, liberals find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels.
How can liberalism — an egregiously false and destructive worldview – be so wildly popular? Granted, some oddballs are attracted to an idea because it's false and destructive, but most liberals are basically normal people. How can tens of millions of regular Joes and Janes be so enthusiastic about legitimizing homosexuality, killing unborn babies and flooding America with unassimilable and hostile foreigners?
A partial answer is that Americans are surrounded from cradle to grave by liberal indoctrination. Granted, isolated pockets of sane thinking — commonly called "conservatism" — do exist. But America, like every society, must have a philosophical system which enables the leaders and the people to understand reality and make decisions. In America, when the leaders articulate their basic beliefs, they usually speak liberalism, albeit sometimes with a conservative accent. And since America's leaders can usually be voted out of power, the conclusion is inescapable: Most Americans support (if only passively) liberalism.
But an atmosphere of liberal indoctrination, although necessary, is not a sufficient explanation of liberalism's iron grip on America. After all, the Soviet Union was even more saturated with propaganda for the ruling ideology (and with threats against those who opposed it) than America is, and yet it was probably never the case that the majority of Russians believed in communism.
No, something else is at work here. To get a hint of the missing and indispensable element, the sine qua non of liberalism's rule, consider an incident I overheard recently on Christian talk radio. A prominent Christian thinker summarized New Atheist Christopher Hitchens as being dead wrong, but "a nice guy."
Christopher Hitchens a nice guy? Given his intense hatred of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his crusade to rid the world of Christianity (and all other religions), how could any sane Christian describe Hitchens as "nice?" Even Hitchens' fans wouldn't call him "nice;" that makes him sound like a wimp.
What the Christian thinker was hinting at, when expressed more correctly, is that many people find Hitchens appealing on account of his sincere righteous indignation. For Hitchens, opposing religion is not an academic game; it's a matter of life and death. This human vitality is a welcome change from the cynical nihilism that characterizes so much of contemporary public discourse, and many find it appealing.
The basic message of Hitchens, and the rest of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al), is that religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia. This message, in turn, is just a specific case of the more comprehensive message of liberalism, that traditional life – the traditional forms of religion, morality, sex roles, love of one's kin, tribe, race and nation, and so on — is evil. And liberalism's common name for this comprehensive evil is "conservatism."
This, then, is the real source of liberalism's power: It promises liberation from the evil of conservatism, a liberation that comes only through embracing nondiscrimination. Call it the False Gospel of Liberalism.
"Nondiscrimination," of course, has many names: nonjudgmentalism, open-mindedness and multiculturalism being the most common. But the single best description of liberalism's all-purpose cure for what ails us is: Thou Shalt Not Discriminate.
Like the perversion of Christianity that it is, liberalism identifies both man's fundamental problem and the basic solution of that problem. Instead of correctly saying that man's basic problem is sin, liberalism sees conservatism as the root cause of evil in both individuals and societies. And instead of offering repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, liberalism tells us to stop discriminating.
And since most Americans breathe the intellectual atmosphere of liberalism, they are generally ready to accept liberalism's gospel. In this gospel they find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels. And those who repent of their conservatism and come to faith in the liberal gospel are also eager to embrace the new life it offers by dedicating themselves to participating — to a greater or lesser extent — in the great liberal jihad against conservatism.
(Please note that by using that word "jihad," I'm switching religious metaphors. Let's remember that jihad is a strictly Islamic concept. Contrary to what you hear from many anti-Christian propagandists, there is nothing in Christianity even remotely similar to jihad.)
Since man is an inherently religious animal, the famous words of Chesterton are apposite: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." The vacuum left by the retreat of Christianity must be filled, and right now, liberalism is the most popular replacement religion. Everybody knows something's deeply wrong with individuals and society, and liberalism supplies understanding, a cure, and satisfying action.
What lessons can conservatives take to heart here? For one, we need to match the liberals' righteous indignation. It's often said that, during debate, he who loses his temper loses the argument. True enough, but he who lacks righteous indignation also loses. The dispute between liberalism and conservatism isn't an academic debate. It's a street fight, carried out with ideas and emotions instead of knives and guns. Although our appeal must be true and our arguments must be valid, if we fight according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, we lose. We must impress upon our listeners and readers the danger, the foolishness and the dishonor of liberalism, and the truth, goodness and beauty of conservatism. Given what's at stake — the survival of our nation — nothing less will do.
The other obvious lesson is, don't accept — either tacitly or openly — the liberal false gospel of nondiscrimination. To the average person, "don't discriminate" simply means "be nice." But that's not what it means to liberals, and their understanding rules the day. So what does liberal nondiscrimination really mean?
It means unlimited nondiscrimination. Liberalism contains no principle limiting the imperative to nondiscrimination. Common sense and the fact that every enterprise runs up against reality will limit the demands of liberalism for now. But it has become clear that liberalism is never satisfied. Equal opportunity is not enough, there must be equal results. And all groups and enterprises must have equality throughout: men and women, old and young, the various races, ethnicities and religions, all conceivable groups must be equal, or else our society is unjust.
I recently heard of a lawsuit by the mother of a wheelchair-bound high school student to force the varsity boy's basketball team to allow him to compete. The suit was thrown out, but what will happen the next time such a suit comes up? What principle of liberalism would forever forbid wheelchair-bound persons from competing with the fully-abled? Answer: There is no such principle.
And note that the forced integration of the wheelchair-bound with the fully-abled would be the destruction of basketball, and its replacement with something radically different.
Liberals are committed to nondiscrimination, and they mean business. Normal people assume that nobody would be so foolish as to carry it to extremes, and most contemporary liberals are careful not to push their program too fast — lest the frog realize he's being boiled — but I defy the reader to identify a liberal leader articulating any principled (as opposed to ad hoc) limit on nondiscrimination. Liberalism really is Nondiscrimination Uber Alles.
And please note: Unlimited nondiscrimination is unlimited destruction. Under the banner of nondiscrimination, liberals are literally destroying America. Not in the sense of turning her into a howling wilderness devoid of human beings, but instead changing her so radically that continuity with the America of the past is on the verge of being decisively ruptured. Liberals are radically changing America's morality, her religion, her laws, customs and pastimes, even her ethnic makeup. And if everything significant has changed, has not the old come to an end?
One can easily find examples of unjust discrimination. But liberalism does not say that unjust discrimination must be abolished. It says all discrimination must end. Liberalism demands indiscriminate nondiscrimination.
No, conservatives, let us decisively reject the basic principle of the Left. Some discrimination is necessary.
For "discrimination" does not mean "being cruel." It means "understanding, acknowledging and acting on differences that matter." We must discriminate between male and female, between child and adult, between criminal and law-abiding, between citizen and foreigner, between productive and lazy, between knowledge and ignorance, between the noble and the base, between the beautiful and the ugly, between the true and the false, because in every one of these dichotomies, the two things differ in important ways. Failing to discriminate is failing to understand reality and to do what is right.
And let us speak with a persuasive and righteous indignation that will impress the undecided. The survival of our nation is at stake.
Actually, if you could come with some quotes to illustrate that the so-called "New Atheists" you list actually believe that "religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia", I'd appreciate it. I've seen them argue that it's wrong and a major source of trouble, but that's not the same thing.
I'd really appreciate quotes from Dennett in particular…
Q. My sense is that you don't just think religion is dishonest. There's something evil about it as well.
A. (Dawkins) Well, yes. I think there's something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die — anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed — that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The consequences it's had historically — the Crusades, the Inquisition, right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York — all in the name of faith.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/print.html
"Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. I have argued that the religious dogmatism of the Jewish settlers could well be the cause of World War III. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/
Alan,
I've long ascribed to the idea that secular/progressivism is a 'religious' doctrine. While I agree that liberalism's presence is ubiquitous; I'm not certain I agree with; "Most Americans support (if only passively) liberalism." If such was the case, then this summer's town hall meetings probably would have been much more subdued; and such a large segment of the American population wouldn't be so 'dead set' against government run health care.
I believe that one of the factors at work here is that, until recently, we've allowed progressives to co-opt the debate. Sun Tzu suggests that when you face a superior foe, choosing the ground on which you engage your enemy is essential to victory. Liberals have been doing this for at least the last two generations by defining the terms of the debate.
All progressive policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what's in a word, how can one word possibly alter the debate over core principles?
Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite.
In your article, you single out the word 'discrimination'. I submit that the Church of Secular/Progressivism has turned the word 'discrimination' into a pejorative. I'm old enough to remember when 'having discrimination' meant "Having the power to make fine distinctions; as in 'discriminating' judgment." Look into today's dictionary and that definition, if it appears at all, is third or fourth on the list; way behind the; "… making a distinction against a person based on the group, class, or category to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit."
This is just one example how the secular/progressives have driven the debate.
Over the years, social/progressives have become superb at mangling the definition of words in order to achieve the victories they've sought. One of the most frustrating components of debating the ideological left is the fact that, most of the time; both sides are not even ascribing the same definitions to the terms being utilized to carry that debate. This allows the left to move the 'goalpost' in order to elude defeat. It also allows them to define a drastic change due to progressive policy into something less 'harmless'.
Regarding the atheistic triumvirate of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris: The best example I've found that refutes their entire position is a book by Vox Day entitled "The Irrational Atheist. Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens." Mr Day, over the course of sixteen chapters utterly destroys the arguments of these gentlemen using only the historical record and their own statements. This is at variance with most persons who criticize these atheists by attempting to use biblical passage to refute their blather. Of course, since the atheists refute the bible, such a debate is less than useless. By deliberately ignoring scripture, Vox Day forces atheists to view their belief system through the prism of recorded history.
It is an excellent read that I would highly recommend to anyone. When the book first came out Mr. Day had a downloadable PDF copy available on his web site for whatever price you felt like paying.
Bill,
My assertion “Most Americans support (if only passively) liberalism” does need to be fleshed out a bit. It appears to me that most Americans at least passively accept the premises of liberalism, even though, as you correctly point out, they often oppose specific liberal policies.
And the two most important liberal premises, rarely openly opposed even by conservatives, are that the God of the Bible does not exist (it’s either some other god, or no god), and Thou Shalt Not Discriminate, where “discrimination” basically means “Whites, Men, Christians, or American citizens acting to further the interests of their group.” Antidiscrimination is not just a leftist quirk, it expresses something essential about their self-understanding and their goals. “Diversity,” the practical opposite of discrimination, is the leftist equivalent of holiness.
The reason “social/progressives have become superb at mangling the definition of words in order to achieve the victories they've sought,” as you put it, is that the left controls the intellectual life of Western Civilization. Until this control is broken, conservatism will continue to lose.
Mountain Man – I'll grant you half a Dawkins, good job. The Harris quote isn't quite so clear – "evil done in the name of God" is not synonymous with "religion". But I didn't see anything to indicate that either one thinks religion is "the source of most of man's woes over the millennia" (emphasis added).
Hitchens is obviously no fan of religion, but I've not seen him claim that it's evil per se. And so far as I can see, Dennett was included in the "New Atheist" umbrella simply because people wanted to talk about the "four horsemen", not because his positions or rhetoric matches up terribly well with the others.
Mr. Wavering – I read "The Irrational Atheist", but came away less impressed than you. For example, look at page 108, where he strings together quotes from multiple different people writing in multiple different books to try to build an argument not actually made by any of them. (If they had, let's see the actual quote of that argument being made…)
I've got a lot of "margin notes" about that work. At some point I'm going to have to polish them up; maybe I'll call it the "The Annotated Irrational Atheist"…
Raymond,
I looked at the pages you cited. It seems the original theory Mr. Day was addressing is the atheist's insistence that there exists a direct connection between religious faith, group violence, and military conflict.
Vox Day begins by stating; "For example, despite admitting that 'wars…are seldom actually about theological disagreements' Dawkins makes nineteen specific connections between religion and war in 'The God Delusion' while Harris does likewise on twenty nine occasions throughout 'The End of Faith'
Vox Day goes on to label the line of reasoning taken by Dawkins and Harris as an 'ontological' or 'circular' argument. He then summarizes their own (Dawkins and Harris) arguments. In the following series the circular argument's premise is repeated first; then the quotation from each author that supports that specific premise.
1. Religion causes division between people "Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force" is the actual Dawkins quotation. The Harris quote is "The religious divisions in our world are self evident."
2. Religion provides the dominate label by which people are divided. Actual Dawkins quotation; "Without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and offend." The Harris quote "The only difference between these groups is what they believe about God."
3. Wars are fought between divided groups of people with different labels. Dawkins quote; "Look carefully at any religion of the world where you find intractable enmity an violence between groups. I cannot guarantee that you'll find religions as the dominate labels for in-groups and out-groups. But it's a very good bet." The Harris quote; "Religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past."
4. Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war. Dawkins quote; "The problem's name is God." Harris quote; "Faith…the most prolific source of violence in our history."
I'm not certain how this qualifies as; "string[ing] together quotes from multiple different people writing in multiple different books to try to build an argument not actually made by any of them."
There is no doubt that one major premise espoused by both Dawkins and Harris is that religion, in their mind, is responsible for war. Vox Day lays out the circular argument;
Religion causes division between people
Religion provides the dominate label by which people are divided
Wars are fought between divided groups of people
Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war
There is the 'ontological' or 'circular' argument. The quotations, as opposed to being from; "…multiple different people writing in multiple different books…" is from TWO different people from TWO different books. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" and Harris in "The End of Faith."
As for your point regarding; "…build an argument not actually made by any of them." I'm not certain that it's possible to deny that both Dawkins and Harris have no compunction about stating that literally all historical violent conflict since man climbed down from the trees is based upon the 'delusion' provided by religion. This is exactly their point in espousing the ascendency of atheism. Or have I greatly mis-interpreted the body of work authored by these two gentlemen?
Mr. Ingles,
Do your own research. It took me all of five minutes to come up with two examples of two atheists equating evil with religion.
Your distinction between "in the name of God" and "religion" is rhetorical hair-splitting. You can move the goalposts if you like, but I have no intention of finding the precisely exact phraseology to accomodate your own lack of inquisitiveness. Both quotes are satisfactory evidence that these atheists equate religion with evil.
Alan,
I'm still intrigued by your essay title; "The False Gospel of Liberalism". I've long been of the opinion that there is a 'religion' of Secular/Progressivism. Secular/Progressivism has its own ideology, dogma, sacraments, acolytes, apostles, and as of late, even its own Messiah.
Quite awhile back, I think I responded to a commentary written by a compatriot of yours; Steven Laib. While I don’t remember the specific essay, I may have archived the response. If I find it I'll let you know.
Mr. Wavering, doesn't the fact that Mr. Day had to gather the quotes in one place from scattered places give you any indication that he might be ignoring context?
Even assuming, for the moment, that such an argument was actually made, let's look at how he addresses the argument. He constructs a parallel argument:
It is indeed a silly argument… but, of course, not one of the so-called "New Atheists" actually makes such an argument. It's certainly true that many of them argue that religion is a cause of war, perhaps even a major cause, but not that it's the cause of war – in the same way that penguins do cause some sardine evolution, but not human or elephant evolution.
(I personally think religion is more of a catalyst than a cause – it exacerbates tensions already present. Very few conflicts are caused soley by religion. The best example I can think of is the current struggle in Israel. Back when the Zionist movement was getting started, there was serious proposal to buy a bunch of land in South America and found a Jewish state there. Instead – for purely religious reasons – the Palestine region was chosen. And we've seen how well that's worked out…)
I'm afraid you have greatly misinterpreted the works of Dawkins and Harris. You can't find any of the "New Atheists" claiming that religion is the sole cause of war. Day certainly doesn't present such a quote – the only thing he can do is stitch together multiple statements out of context in an attempt to imply such a claim. If you can provide a direct quote to support your claim that "they have no compunction about stating that literally all historical violent conflict since man climbed down from the trees is based upon the 'delusion' provided by religion", I'd be fascinated to see it.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
I thought I’d save everybody the trouble of having another parallel conversation with Raymond. “The source” does not mean “sole cause”. “Implicit cause” does not mean “sole cause”.
Raymond Comment #1: “if you could come with some quotes to illustrate that the so-called "New Atheists" you list actually believe that ‘religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia’, I'd appreciate it.”
Waverling characterization of the atheist logic Comment #8: “Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war.”
Raymond Comment #11: “You can't find any of the ’New Atheists’ claiming that religion is the sole cause of war.”
Always remember what the original question was that generated a comment.
And just as significantly, always remember the words you actually used vs. the way your words are re-defined to disprove a point you never made.
Dr. Jackson – Speaking of the difference between re-defined words and the ones actually used… do you think there's a difference between the phrases "an implicit cause" and "the implicit cause"?
If so, could you characterize that difference?
I’m not particularly interested in getting into another inane conversation with Raymond.
He started off making two statements “if you could come with some quotes to illustrate that the so-called "New Atheists" you list actually believe that ‘religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia’, I'd appreciate it.”
Mountain Man quickly showed that there are indeed quotes about religion being “evil.”
Now we’re on to the issue of whether the New Atheists believe that “religion is … the source of most of man's woes over the millennia’
Waverling characterization of the atheist logic in Comment #8 was “Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war.”
Raymond countered with Comment #11: “You can't find any of the ’New Atheists’ claiming that religion is the sole cause of war.”
Raymond’s counter claim did not refute Waverling’s characterization. Wars can have an implicit cause (such as an economic dispute, territorial aggrandizement, religious orientation [from the Crusades to Islamo Fascism], etc.) but this does not mean it is the sole cause.
Religious issues may be fed by economic issues; territorial aggrandizement may be one factor in addition to ideology or racial politics, etc.
In short, knowing the (or an) IMPLICIT cause of a war does not tell you the SOLE reason for that war.
This isn’t arguable. You can’t disprove a comment about the (or an) “implicit cause” by asserting that it is a discussion about “the sole cause”.
Always remember what the original question was that generated a comment.
And just as significantly, always remember the words you actually used vs. the way your words are re-defined to disprove a point you never made.
Dr. Jackson – Okay, let's correct my phrasing: You can't find any of the ’New Atheists’ claiming that religion is "the" (i.e. sole) implicit cause of war. At most, they state that religion is an (as in, one of a number) implicit cause.
That's my point. The 'New Atheists' certainly believe religion is (at least) a net negative (another reason why including Dennett among the 'New Atheists' is so amusing, since he's rather less certain about that) but Mr. Day and Mr. Waverling exaggerate and distort this. They claim that the 'New Atheists' are "stating that literally all historical violent conflict since man climbed down from the trees is based upon the 'delusion' provided by religion".
But that's just not so. And nobody – including you – has provided the slightest justification for claiming that.
(Oh, and I was being generous w/Mountain Man. Not all religion is "believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence", but that's the only fraction Dawkins characterized as 'evil'. So long as we're going with "words… actually used" and all.)
>Okay, let's correct my phrasing: You can't find any of the ’New Atheists’ claiming that religion is "the" (i.e. sole) implicit cause of war. At most, they state that religion is an (as in, one of a number) implicit cause.
*** Who, exactly, was making the claim that “the ’New Atheists’ claim[ed] that religion is "the" (i.e. sole) implicit cause of war?” The only one I saw raising this claim that religion is the “sole” cause of war was you.
You’ve raised and refuted your own assertion. It’s an interesting way to debate.
>And nobody – including you – has provided the slightest justification for claiming that.
*** I haven’t made any comments about the substance of the article at all. I’ve just simply commented, as a public service, on the rhetorical sleight of hand that transformed actual statements made by others into the “sole” cause of war, which you then went on to refute.
I’ve simply pointed out that we need to always remember what the original question was that generated a comment.
And just as significantly, always remember the words that were actually used vs. the way someone’s words are re-defined to disprove a point they never made.
Sorry gentlemen; I’ve been busy. I’ve obviously offended Raymond. If so, I apologize. The original reference in Post #1 is; “"religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia", I'd [Raymond would] appreciate it. I've seen them argue that it's wrong and a major source of trouble, but that's not the same thing.”
Then Mountain Man digs up the Dawkins reference about “…faith having extremely evil consequences.” Then Raymond and I got into a discussion regarding Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” from which I got the immediate impression that Raymond is not a big fan of Day.
My original claim stands. Raymond’s own reference to specific language in Mr. Day’s book was misunderstood, whether accidental or deliberate, was in error. I’ll admit to engaging in a flight of hyperbole with my statement; “There is no doubt that one major premise espoused by both Dawkins and Harris is that religion, in their mind, is responsible for war.” Guilty as charged. There are times however, when one can best highlight the absurd by being absurd.
No one can deny that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris name ‘religion’ in general, and Christianity specifically, as the ‘root’ cause of the overwhelming majority of Man’s troubles. Violence, war, strife, all are to be laid at the feet of religious fundamentalism. When even a cursory glance over history shows that even combining the casualties from the Inquisition, the various wars directly attributable to religion; i.e. The Crusades, The current war with Islamic extremism, etc, the recorded carnage doesn’t come close to the figure attributed to such notable atheists as Mao, Lenin, and Stalin That Sam Harris has tried on several occasions to distance himself from such ‘historical’ atheists is proof enough of the disingenuous nature of his claims. I don’t believe there is any documented evidence that ‘theism’ can be proven as the ‘root’ cause of man’s inhumanity to man, and that atheism, by its nature, precludes such violence.
Gentlemen,
I see that you are arguing over one of my subsidiary points (“atheistic apologists blame religion for most of man’s woes”) and making few comments about my main point, that liberalism is a religion psychologically based on opposition to “discrimination.”
Raymond: I concede that my characterization of the evangelistic atheists’ view as being “religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia” was overstated. Evil, yes, but not necessary the source of MOST of man’s woes.
If I had to rewrite, I’d characterize their views (remember, I’m giving the views of the evangelistic atheists, not Joe Sixpack atheist) as “Religion is evil, and a major contributor to the injustices that characterize traditional Western society.” Even if they don’t use the word “evil,” they use words functionally indistinguishable. After all, if Christianity (their primary target) is false and comprehensively and fundamentally misleading of both individuals and society, “evil” is certainly a reasonable word to use.
That being said, my main point remains: the evangelistic atheists want to eliminate religion as a source of authority over society. This much is self-evident. And this is just one aspect of the liberal’s “gospel call” to repent of the sin of conservatism and join the liberal jihad against “discrimination.”
Alan,
In post #13 you begin by saying; “I see that you are arguing over one of my subsidiary points (“atheistic apologists blame religion for most of man’s woes”) and making few comments about my main point, that liberalism is a religion psychologically based on opposition to “discrimination.”
I really have to admit that one of the most appealing attributes of the Intellectual Conservative is exactly this phenomenon. At times; trying to direct the spirited debate that follows an original piece is akin to herding cats. All of us ‘subsequent posters’ latch onto some unintended consequence of the resulting thread and go prancing off the reservation.
I agree with your comment completely. Any author, by virtue of having contributor status, has the irrevocable right to drag us all back to his core premise whenever he darn well pleases.
I concur! In past postings to this site, I’ve made observations that the adherents of the secular/progressive left approach their core beliefs with all the fervor of Ideological Jihadists. Discrimination is indeed one of the dogmas of the Religion of Secular/Progressivism. Please don’t take further umbrage with my comments. My personal experience leads me to observe that democrats, liberals, and progressives; while all being manifestations of the same overall ideology are separated by orders of magnitude when it comes to their dedication to the cause. While discrimination is certainly part & parcel of the progressive ideology we could also include non-judgmentalism, multiculturalism economic redistribution, and a plethora of other issues. The intensity of focus that progressives bring to the discussion certainly proves the essential position that the issue of discrimination; along with untold others are held as central to their veneration. Personally I assign the religious tag to the progressives as opposed to mere liberals. My personal experience has shown that liberals posses an ability to admit an occasional point that would drive a progressive into a spittle flinging tirade.
In addition I think you are on solid ground when you say; “That being said, my main point remains: The evangelistic atheists want to eliminate religion as a source of authority over society.
This is most certainly a true statement. While the ‘theist versus atheist’ debate will never subside. To my knowledge, no one has ever accused the atheists of being stupid. For the most part the set of atheists probably contains some of the most well educated, well read, most articulate members of the human race. That’s the reason we find the atheist to be so incongruous. To be so well versed in the world yet to believe that the entire 14.5 billion year cubic volume of our universe is merely a ‘throw-of-the-dice’ gives us pause. But, I guess, it does ‘take all kinds’, huh?
Alan, I commend you on your desire to portrait the Left in the misguided thinking they pursue. But shame on you, and many on the 'so called' Conservative Right, for being so intellectually Lazy, or dishonest, about their/your use of the language.
What am I talking about? I am talking about your twisted attempt to utterly defame perhaps the most honourable word in the political language: Liberalism. I will clearly state, up front, that as a True Liberal, who is forced to preface my description with the word "Classic", I am deeply offended by your, and other's, twisting of the language to suit your preconceived idea of accuracy.
The truth, and accuracy, is that the people with whom you are describing, are Progressives/Collectivists,and NOT Liberals. True Liberals believe passionately in Individual Liberty, not more State power, or egalitarianism. And yet you all persist in twisting the facts.
Now, why is this so important? I'll tell you why. In order to take control of an argument, you must first control the language of that argument. And if your language is not accurate, then how in the world can you ever control the argument itself? The simple fact is that 19th century Liberalism is Jeffersonian in nature, and is expressed by a healty skepticism in the size and scope of government. Just go back and study your history for a change, and then tell me that your description of the word "Liberal" is accurate, much less true. I challenge you.
This entire lie began with the election campaign of FDR, when he wrapped himself around the cloak of Liberalism, when he was nowhere akin to this. A quick study of FDR will clearly show that he was deeply appreciative of the Progressive Movement, which was the main forerunner of Fascism. Liberalism's true tenants are Responsible Individualism, Limited Self-Government, Rule of Law, and Sanctity of Property. Where in the Lord's name does any of this fit within the thinking of today's Left? Where?
So please, educate yourself. If you are relying on such luminaries as Rush Limbaugh(who knows the truth, yet has too much invested there to be honest about it), then you are following a false pretext. Please have the intellectual decency to stop plagiarizing you attempt at political commentary.
If you are not enlightened enough to know better, please attend such Classic Liberal/Libertarian sites, as the Foundation of Economic Education(FEE), try reading some of the works of Frederic von Hayet, James Buchannan, or Harry Hazelett.
Enough stated. Now go forth, and sin no more.
NOTE: Another causalty of this misguided defamation of such an honourable name, it the other word which accompanies it: Liberty. Today, so many have such a low opinion of LIberalism, that they no longer use the word 'liberty'. Now they use 'freedom' instead. And there is a distinct difference between the two.
Freedom, it the right to do as you please. Liberty is not the same thing, because freedom is but one aspect of liberty. The other part of the equation, is responsibility, and that is not part of freedom. But so many people are attempting to put a square peg into a round hole, and it will simply not fit.
Next time you wish to think of talking about "liberty", use the proper word. It will not harm you, or your thought process. And,…….perhaps with enough practice, you may find the intellectual courage to make good on your current dishonest use of the sister word, "Liberal".
We just finished a long exchange on the utility of applying classical terms (like Classical Liberalism, Classical Conservatism, etc.) to understanding contemporary politics.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/01/26/have-liberals-lost-faith-in-the-anointed-one/#comments
The proponent of doing this was a person who went by the name “Gestell”. See the following excerpted comments below about misapplying Classical definitions to understanding contemporary politics.
***
Gestell’s approach appears to be an over-extension of a legitimate exploration of the philosophical roots of Classical Liberal and Classical Conservative theory, in which he superimposes these terms and theories onto modern day political practices to support an agenda-driven conclusion that Conservatism is inherently evil, while Liberalism suffers from none of these same deficiencies.
This is the same kind of methodology that the paleos use to claim the mantle of “True Conservatives”, and insist that anyone who doesn’t believe that “race matters” is a Marxist, liberal, anti-intellectual, etc. Gestell takes this same approach — defining modern day Conservatism and Liberalism solely through the prism of classical writers (who, by the way, formed their theories and expressions in a different context, where some of the words and concepts they used then, though sounding similar, are pragmatically different today) — and uses it as a club against Conservatism. This same club expressly excuses the excesses of modern day Liberals because from a purely academic standpoint, Marx and Mao have never been listed under the body of literature academics describe as “Classical Liberalism”.
As an academic exercise, what Gestell is doing has some merit. It’s interesting intellectually to see if what Obama or Nixon did follows more along the lines of what Kirk and Weaver wrote, or John Stuart Mill. Unfortunately, as an academic exercise, it must have some additional real-world components to make it truly reflective their actual decisions.
I’ve seen Glenn Beck’s documentary on Progressivism, for example. While what he says is accurate about their race-based eugenics-riddled philosophy, modern day “Progressives” are not racist eugenicists. This is because people today who practice politics by borrowing images and phrases from the past to identify themselves as Progressives don’t always (a) fully understand the full nature of the philosophy they borrow from, and (b) what a philosophy stood for 100 years ago isn’t always what it stands for today. Like everything in life, the essence of things change. JFK was a Liberal in 1960; Nancy Pelosi is a Liberal in 2010. Same descriptor; but different pragmatic philosophies in many key respects.
This is my fundamental problem with Gerstellian Analysis: his rather intellectually sloppy way of transitioning from political philosophy to political analysis. It manifests itself in many of the examples he uses, and conclusions he’s drawn, to support his positions. …
… Which brings me to my final point. If someone wants to propose a methodology that helps explain contemporary politics, they need to have something that is grounded in the way the world actually functions; not something that simply conforms to academically-created categories of Classical Liberalism or Classical Conservatism.
Gestellian Methodology can’t do this, which is why he does the following. I point out that from a practical standpoint, modern day Liberals have drawn on the political philosophies of Marx and Mao more than John Stuart Mill. I gave examples of why this is true (Liberal support for Stalin in the 20’s and 30, The Left’s view during the Vietnam War era on capitalism and “imperialism”, the desire today by the Left to socialize 1/6 of the US economy [health care], to set compensation policy on all ‘key private industry sectors’ [not just TARP recipients], etc.).
Gestell’s response is to say that Marx and Mao have “little or nothing” to do with Liberalism. Yes — little or nothing to do with the academically-identified body of “Classical Liberalism”, which is not the subject of the discussion of why people and politicians act the way they do today! This is the contrived defining-away of a problem, not the analysis of a political action.
If Gestell was to respond to this, he’d say I’m being “anti-intellectual” because I’m flouting decades and decades of solid academic inquiry into the subject of Classical political philosophy. But in fact, I’m doing nothing of the kind. I’m not commenting at all on whether Marx and Mao are “classical liberals” as defined by the academic literature — I’ll concede they aren’t. What I am saying is that American Liberalism as practiced in the political arena throughout the 20th century IS heavily influenced by Marx and Mao.
Understanding the actions of the American Left is not an academic exercise of fitting them into academic categories of analysis. It’s looking at the philosophical foundations of these actions, regardless of how academics want to lump people together.
And in making these comparisons, we need to do more than define the words “Liberal” and “Conservative” solely in terms of abstract classical literature. These are also practical descriptors that in many cases are applied to individuals by these individuals themselves.
If I want to understand what Liberals and Conservatives actually think and do in America, I don’t necessarily start with classical philosophical literature. I’m almost better off looking at the purely political manifestos and polemics they produce, some of which pay homage to certain philosophies, others of which are simply ideological justifications for pragmatic political actions. An obvious case here is the National Socialist movement of the 1930s. You understand Hitler and the Nazis by starting with Mein Kamph, not “classical” political theory.
If all Gestell wants to do is give us a history lesson about Classical political philosophy, again, that’s fine. But if he wants to use Classical literature as the primary base to evaluate contemporary actions, he cannot dodge the issue of what is really going on by playing games with semantics. An analytical framework is supposed to tell you something real about the world we presently live in. It’s not just an academic exercise to see whether an action or philosophy in 2010 conforms to the Classical definition of a word (“Liberal” or “Conservative”). …This is why my commentaries always begin with the practical application of political ideology, not the classical roots of political philosophy.
Political commentary should be about understanding the world as it actually is. The fact that groups today have bastardized the Classical labels of Liberal, Conservative, Progressive doesn’t mean that we ignore these labels and insist that we apply only classical definitions. Rather, it means that we recognize the difference between a history and philosophy essay, and one that uses language as it is used today.
There’s no “sin” in defining modern day Liberalism as it actually exists in a political analysis. The only sin is in thinking that we somehow must pretend that only Classical definitions can be used in a contemporary political analysis, as if all we are doing is constructing an essay on the semantic origins of political philosophy.
John L,
In the beginning of your post # 20 you say; "I am talking about your twisted attempt to utterly defame perhaps the most honourable word in the political language: Liberalism."
Although I must confess this is the first time I've seen your moniker; I don’t know that anyone is guilty of defamation here. Most people posting to this site recognize the difference between a Classic Liberal and a Modern Liberal.
In fact, if you'll bother to look at post #19; there is a passage that states; "My personal experience leads me to observe that democrats, liberals, and progressives; while all being manifestations of the same overall ideology are separated by orders of magnitude when it comes to their dedication to the cause."
This falls into line with a posting I issued in response to an essay entitled "Have Liberals Lost Faith in The Anointed One?" (Please review Post #1 to that particular title for the entire analysis. Actually the entire thread makes for some interesting reading.) The summary is; that as conservatives some of us are guilty of using the words democrat, liberal, and progressive interchangeably; and this not correct given my personal experience.
Having said that; if you want to place the modifier 'classic' in front of the root 'liberal' who am I to argue the point? Last time I checked, this was still, for now, the land of the free. If Classic Liberal is the phrase you're most comfortable with great!
I find much to agree with regarding your claim that; "Liberty is not the same thing, because freedom is but one aspect of liberty. The other part of the equation is responsibility, and that is not part of freedom."
I have utilized much the same descriptive language when differentiating between 'right' and 'privilege'. A right is a privilege irrevocably coupled to a responsibility. Privilege without responsibility is, at best, just privilege and, at worst, anarchy.
The easiest manner to demonstrate this is the 'right' to drive. One is granted this right as long as he maintains proper licensing requirements for himself and his vehicle, possesses auto insurance, and obeys traffic laws. Fail in one of these aspects of responsibility and you are punished by law. Fail long enough or large enough; and the law may curtail, restrict, or revoke this right entirely.
This would be my argument against marriage being a 'right'. The licensing requirement is less than useless; and there are no associated responsibilities. Granted, there may be penalties to be paid upon dissolution of the contract; but these responsibilities are not listed, are not tabulated in law, and usually are subject to no criminal liability if repeatedly ignored. Also the penalties (child support, interim support, visitation, ect.) are not encoded, but vary widely from case to case according to circumstance, the whim of the judge, and the skills of the lawyers involved. One may promise to 'Love, Honor, Cherish and Support; 'till death do us part' but there is no compunction to actually carry out any aspect of this promise. Driving is a right, marriage is a privilege.
John L,
I appreciate your passion to defend the honor of the concept (“classic liberalism”) you love. But individuals do not have the right to redefine words that are in widespread usage.
Nowadays, the word “liberal,” when not accompanied by any other descriptors, usually means “derived from the worldview of the Left.” And that worldview is relentlessly atheistic, relativistic, multiculturalistic, and so on. That is the sense in which I’m using the word, and since it is in keeping with popular usage, those who have a different meaning in mind have the responsibility to make that meaning clear in the terminology they use.
I agree that the word “liberal,” as used until roughly the 60’s, meant something significantly different from what it means today. At the same time, though, the word has always had, as part of its meaning, a skepticism about ultimate issues such as God and morality that, when taken seriously, leads to (or at least encourages others toward) the unbridled leftism we see today. While a classical liberal is a great improvement over a leftist, the former is not without sin, as his skepticism laid the foundation of today’s situation in which the left rules.
Mr. Roebuck – I quite agree that the "New Atheists" (at least Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris) think that "Religion is … a major contributor to the injustices that characterize traditional Western society", and I think that's a fair characterization. (For atheists with a more nuanced point of view, you could look to Dennett, or David Sloan Wilson.)
I do quibble with the idea that they think religion is "evil" per se – evil requires a certain conscious intent that simply being mistaken doesn't involve. Dawkins singles out a willingness to believe without or even in spite of evidence as evil, not all religious belief. But that's a quibble, and not critical to your main point.
And I certainly agree that they "want to eliminate religion as a source of authority over society". If they're right about religion being a major contributor to injustice and violence, then that's only sensible of them.
I can even agree that many people follow (modern) liberal causes – "anti-discrimination", environmentalism, and so forth – with a quasi-religious fervor. (Not that such fervor is limited to the 'left' of the political spectrum, of course…)
But I don't know if I could call that a 'religion'. So far as I can see, a religion has to include some notion of the supernatural. I think the word you want might be something like 'worldview' or 'philosophy' or perhaps 'dogma'. (Worldviews, philosophies, and dogmas can be religious or otherwise.)
And even allowing that discrimination is often necessary – there's room for plenty of disagreement on what counts as "unjust discrimination" and what doesn't. For example, under what circumstances "must" we "discriminate between male and female", exactly? Not a whole lot of females will likely meet the upper-body strength requirements for firefighting… but I assume you'd agree that such women who do meet such requirements and should not be prevented from joining the fire department?
Dr. Jackson – you ask, Who, exactly, was making the claim that “the ’New Atheists’ claim[ed] that religion is "the" (i.e. sole) implicit cause of war?”
Mr. Wavering and Vox Day. That's quite clear by Mr. Wavering's statements in comment 8 (though he's since backed away from that, calling it 'hyperbole') and how Day 'interprets' his 'parallel argument' (as I quoted in comment 11).
Mr. Wavering now says he was exaggerating, and I'll accept that. Day, on the other hand…
Raymond. You are the only one who used the word "sole". You are also the only person who has used the word “exaggerating”.
Here are Bill Waverling’s actual words: I’ve obviously offended Raymond. If so, I apologize. The original reference in Post #1 is; “"religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia", I'd [Raymond would] appreciate it. I've seen them argue that it's wrong and a major source of trouble, but that's not the same thing.”
Then Mountain Man digs up the Dawkins reference about “…faith having extremely evil consequences.” Then Raymond and I got into a discussion regarding Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” from which I got the immediate impression that Raymond is not a big fan of Day.
My original claim stands. Raymond’s own reference to specific language in Mr. Day’s book was misunderstood, whether accidental or deliberate, was in error. I’ll admit to engaging in a flight of hyperbole with my statement; “There is no doubt that one major premise espoused by both Dawkins and Harris is that religion, in their mind, is responsible for war.” Guilty as charged. There are times however, when one can best highlight the absurd by being absurd.
No one can deny that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris name ‘religion’ in general, and Christianity specifically, as the ‘root’ cause of the overwhelming majority of Man’s troubles. …
As I noted earlier, when having a conversation with Raymond, always remember the words and phrases that were actually used vs. the way your words and their meaning are re-defined by Raymond to prove/disprove a point that was never made.
Raymond,
Here we go again. Once more around the barn, shall we?
The Irrational Atheist; Page 97; "Religion makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, "religion," covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of persecution, of tyranny, and death….Although they have been preaching universal love, the Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world."
Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Damage Religion causes"
And if that's not enough;
Implicit – Contained in the nature of someone or something but not readily apparent. Understood but not directly expressed. (From Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary.)
So you ask in post #25; "Who, exactly, was making the claim that “the ’New Atheists’ claim[ed] that religion is "the" (i.e. sole) implicit cause of war?”
By the very nature of the above definition; literally every 'new atheist' claims that religion is the implicit (Contained in the nature of someone or something but not readily apparent. Understood but not directly expressed.) cause of war. How can this be read in any other manner?
It's one thing to be single-minded; it's quite another to ignore the dictionary definition of a word in an attempt to further a debate point.
C'mon man!
I suggest we continue to quibble of shades of meaning, rabbit trails, and minute differences in perceptions. This all certainly advances the discussion and leads to greater clarity.
Or, we could simply accept prima facia the obvious truth that the New Atheists in general believe that religion is at least a foolish pursuit by simple minds, and at worst a damaging, evil influence in the world.
Choose now.
"Thank you sir, may I have another?"
"Hurts so good, c'mon baby make it hurt so good, sometimes love don't feel as it should, baby, hurts so good."
Bill: As Mountain Man and I know only too well, this is the way Raymond participates in a debate.
It's an endless series of dodges, weaves, and mis-directions.
If Raymond says something that he needs to distance himself from later, he just ignores what he said earlier or redefines his words to mean something different.
On the other hand, when you say something he searches for a new word to describe what you actually intended to say in the Raymondland version of reality. He then latches on to this new word to prove his point that your position (as rewritten and redefined by him) is flawed.
When you complain that Raymond is manufacturing your words and positions, he tells you that you are incorrect because he knows what you really meant (or, there’s no real difference between your original words and his — other than the fact, of course, that he won’t actually use your words as written, or in the context you offered them).
This allows Raymond to argue points you never actually made, while distancing himself from the actual points he really made.
Once you get past your initial frustration and realize that his intention is not to enter into an honest exchange of ideas, it almost becomes comical — in sad sort of way.
Dr. Jackson, you write,
That's the difference between "the implicit cause" and "an implicit cause". In such a phrase, "the" means "single", whereas "an" means "one of two or more".
It's a key misrepresentation of the ideas of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. Their theses certainly can be attacked, but I seldom see anyone attacking what they actually say. Instead, I see people attacking distortions or misrepresentations of their statements.
Okay, Dr. J, you've officially jumped the shark. I'd be fascinated if you could explain to me how someone could manage to be "engaging in a flight of hyperbole" without "exaggerating".
(As a wise man once said, "Once you get past your initial frustration and realize that his intention is not to enter into an honest exchange of ideas, it almost becomes comical — in sad sort of way.")
"…I seldom see anyone attacking what they actually say." Now THAT is a groaner.
Mr. Wavering – It's quite revealing that, in attempting to characterize the positions of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, you quote… someone else entirely.
Whereas, if you ask Dawkins himself, say, you get: Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.
The misunderstanding is not in the meaning of the word "implicit". Again, you messed up the article. Religion is an implicit cause of war, not the implicit cause of war.
In other words, not all wars necessarily have religion as one of their implicit causes. C'mon man!
Raymond. Once again, you are the only one who used the word "sole". If there’s no real difference between the original word and your creation, why not use the original word instead of your creation?
The same applies to the word “hyperbole”. If there’s no real difference between the original word and your creation, why not use the original word instead of your creation?
This wise man you quoted also said “If Raymond says something that he needs to distance himself from later, he just ignores what he said earlier or redefines his words to mean something different. On the other hand, when you say something he searches for a new word to describe what you actually intended to say in the Raymondland version of reality. He then latches on to this new word to prove his point that your position (as rewritten and redefined by him) is flawed.”
If there’s no difference between two words, use the original word instead of substituting a new word.
When you insist on substituting a new word for the one actually used, it raises the same kind of questions today virtually everyone has raised about you in the past regarding your intentions (or ability) to debate honestly.
A special not to all the third graders reading this comment section. (I assume those in the fourth grade and above won't have any similar confusion).
There appears to be some confusion on the part of certain participants as to the way to engage in a real debate. Here are a few simple rules to follow.
1. Never use direct quotes (“) to manufacture a phrase someone never actually said. If you want to characterize their remarks, put them in single quotes (‘), or add the qualifying words/phrases like appeared to say, seems to be saying, leads one to the conclusion that he means … etc. When you don’t do this, it makes you look dishonest.
2. When you put double quotes around a manufactured phrase in error, admit it was a mistake instead of insisting that even though the person never actually said those words, that’s what they really said anyway. When you don’t do this, it makes you look dishonest.
3. If you maintain that two words means the same thing, then use the word that was originally written, not the one you created. After all, if they indeed mean the same thing, then the original word is 100% accurate — and there’s no need to invent a new word. When you don’t do this, it makes you look dishonest.
Please know there are more rules of common courtesy than these three. But if you respect these three notions, then accidental/unintended displays of dishonesty can be put into perspective and excused or, at least, understood.
Raymond,
IN post #34 you open with; "Mr. Wavering – It's quite revealing that, in attempting to characterize the positions of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, you quote… someone else entirely."
Here, once again is my original statement from Post #27; "The Irrational Atheist; Page 97; "Religion makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, "religion," covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of persecution, of tyranny, and death….Although they have been preaching universal love, the Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world."
Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Damage Religion causes"
Which comes directly from the book and author we were orginially discussing. That he includes it in the book and that I use it to further butress the arguement doesn't hinder my point; it enhances it. I used it purposfully to show that there are atheists beyond the three we were specifically discussing that name religion as an implicit cause of war.
Then, we once again come 'full circle' where you actually arrive at the conclusion everyone has been trying to get you to. You say; "In other words, not all wars necessarily have religion as one of their implicit causes. C'mon man!"
Absolutely correct! You get the 'Gold Star'! That's what we've all been saying all along: Religion is NOT, as the 'New' Atheists claim an implicit cause of war. They say it is, but cannot make the case. Your contention has always been; "They never EXACTLY (in direct words) said so, so you can't pin that on them.
The Irrational Atheist page 98; "Harris is far from the only atheist who makes a habit of incesssntly implying or even outright stating that religion is the cause of most military conflict…"
Atheists proclaim that religion is a dangerous institution that foments the overwhelming majority of the examples of both unorganized and organized violence. This is simply untrue, and to battle from any other stance is not defensible.
Re: “‘Nondiscrimination,’ of course, has many names: nonjudgmentalism, open-mindedness and multiculturalism being the most common. … Liberalism really is Nondiscrimination Über Alles.”
This essay sounds a lot like one written by Lawrence Auster several years ago. His thesis is about “Tolerance Über Alles”. If you replace “non-discrimination” with “tolerance” in the above, that’s what you have.
Re: “Failing to discriminate is failing to understand reality and to do what is right.”
Auster continues:
“…Thus politically correct America wages hysterical crusades against ethnic slurs or sexual comments by private individuals, while shrugging its shoulders at gross criminality and possible treason by the President – if he is seen as a sufficiently ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ person. Thus the modern liberal regime bans the merest breath of the Christian religion in public schools, while subsidizing student clubs devoted to witchcraft. Thus the mainstream media routinely attack the ‘oppressive’ and ‘racist’ police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are ‘oppressing.’ These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern Liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated.”
He takes it a little further than Roebuck and explains how good and evil have exchanged places and why “doing what is right” can no longer be determined:
“In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good.”
So, the society is being destroyed because:
“ … a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by definition ‘unequal’ and ‘exclusive’ and thus illegitimate. … If, therefore, we truly desire to live in a society that can effectively resist the evil of anti-Semitism, or any evil for that matter, we must do two things: (1) define the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture.”
In short, we are all doomed.
Dr. Jackson, you write, "…you are the only one who used the word "sole"… If there’s no difference between two words, use the original word instead of substituting a new word.
I used the word sole because I'm pointing out the difference between the words "the" and "an". If there were no difference between the phrases "the implicit cause" and "an implicit cause"… why would I be getting such pushback? Ask Mr. Wavering if he thinks there's no important difference there.
It's funny, I did use Mr. Wavering's "original word", "hyperbole"… but one sentence later (making the context unmistakable), when I described that as "exaggeration", you become upset… despite the fact that that's what hyperbole is.
What's really remarkable about this is that I'm disputing an argument made by Vox Day, where uses his own phrasing to sum up words by other people, taken out of context. If you're serious about honestly representing someone's words, you should be on my side here. Oh, well.
Mr. Wavering – Christians claim that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by God's wrath against the Haitian people because of a pact with the devil a couple hundred years ago.
Well, one Christian – Pat Robertson – said that, anyway. Not any Christian we're talking about here, but, y'know, all Christians think alike, right?
That's the problem with your statements like "Atheists proclaim that religion is a dangerous institution that foments the overwhelming majority of the examples of both unorganized and organized violence." Sure, you can find damn fool atheists like damn fool Christians… but we were talking about the "New Atheists", not any random guy you can find a quote for.
And yes, we agree that "not all wars necessarily have religion as one of their implicit causes". I've been saying that all along… that's not our disagreement.
Our disagreement is that Day (and now you) claim that the "New Atheists" claim otherwise. And that just ain't so.
Raymond, once again, if there’s no difference between two words, use the original word instead of substituting a new word. It’s really no more difficult than this.
Mr. Ingles,
"Sure, you can find damn fool atheists like damn fool Christians… but we were talking about the "New Atheists", not any random guy you can find a quote for." Are Dawkins and Harris "damn fool atheists?" Or are they "new atheists?" Or maybe both?
"Our disagreement is that Day (and now you) claim that the "New Atheists" claim otherwise. And that just ain't so." Please review my posts 2 and 3.
You quote Mr. Wavering: "Atheists proclaim that religion is a dangerous institution that foments the overwhelming majority of the examples of both unorganized and organized violence." Are you disputing that Dawkins and Harris have argued substantially this same point? in the quotes I obtained for you?
I repost this:
I suggest we continue to quibble of shades of meaning, rabbit trails, and minute differences in perceptions. This all certainly advances the discussion and leads to greater clarity.
Or, we could simply accept prima facia the obvious truth that the New Atheists in general believe that religion is at least a foolish pursuit by simple minds, and at worst a damaging, evil influence in the world.
Choose now.
MM: Good luck! I don't believe that anyone (here on this website, or in any other source) has ever listed one thing, and one thing only, as "the" cause of war. And yet, Raymond continues to base his entire "an"/"the" distinction on this supposed nuance.
Raymond cannot argue a point unless he first re-writes it, substituting his own words for what someone actually said, and then disputing that new phraseology.
On Feb 5th @ 8:20 you said; “Mr. Wavering – It's quite revealing that, in attempting to characterize the positions of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, you quote… someone else entirely.” (Not my fault: I can't track comments as well in the new format.; but I do like the format.)
In response to a previous quotation from The Irrational Atheist. The attempt was to prove that not only the New Atheists (which, by the way, we all seem to agree are the triumvirate of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris; are not the ONLY ones who hold that religion is a danger.
You contention is that no “New Atheist” has ever uttered such a statement .In post #8 I went to great lengths to quote statements attributed directly to them. Which you promptly dismissed.
Maybe this will work. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins says that, 'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.' http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=227
There’s one “New Atheist”. Since they support each other; should be plenty along with all the other overwhelming evidence provided by my previous posts and Phillip’s, and Mountain Man’s. Or must I really find the balance? It is 7PM where I live and dinner is ready.
While intriguing; your ‘Quixote-like’ methods of continually trying to defend the indefensible can be wearing. You would do well to research the definitions of ‘endurance’ and ‘victory’ as I can assure you they are not equivalent. However; just by reviewing your posts over the last few months; equivalence doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
Mr. Wavering – Dawkins can say that religion causes wars without saying that religion causes all wars. Is that such a difficult stretch?
Let's try a different tack. Read the "penguin" argument of Vox Day's that I quoted above (page 109of IA). Do you think that it's actually a close parallel to the argument that Dawkins et. al. actually make? A "yes" or a "no" would be most helpful.
Mr Ingles,
I fail to understand why you are so apologetic about religion. There isn't such thing as soft religion and fundamentalism. They all are the same! Obseve all the comments from the religious band in this thread. They seem they rather come from al qaeda members than from westerners whose society´s greater values are based on democracy and republicanism!
Willtell,
I don’t recognize the moniker but welcome to the fray!
You’ve obviously mis-read the thread. Raymond isn’t being apologetic over religion. If you’ve witnessed the dialog that usually occurs here at IC between Raymond and any other contributor, on any subject, you’d know already that Raymond never apologizes over anything! He just continues to forge ahead, ignoring evidence, citation, and at times, his own previous posts, in a vain attempt to claim victory.
The entire conversation has revolved around whether the ‘New Atheists’ as represented by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have declared religion as a primary cause of war in society. Raymond defends their honor by stating that; “No ‘New Atheist’ has ever directly been quoted as saying such. On the other hand; several other contributors have tried, repeatedly I might add, to demonstrate to Raymond that the empirical evidence that they hold to this philosophy is overwhelming.
Your statement; “They seem they rather come from al qaeda members than from westerners whose society´s greater values are based on democracy and republicanism!” while a little unwieldy is also a little confusing.
al-Queda is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989/early 1990 that operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad.
Funny as it is; I seem to have misplaced my suicide vest.
Raymond,
I'll accept your challenge and re-read the passage.
Mr. Wavering – you write, The entire conversation has revolved around whether the ‘New Atheists’ as represented by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have declared religion as a primary cause of war in society.
Well, no. Indeed, as I said above to Mr. Roebuck, I quite agree that the "New Atheists" (at least Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris) think that "Religion is … a major contributor to… injustice and violence."
The problem comes when people misread or parody this into saying that religion is "the source of most of man's woes over the millennia" (emphasis added), or "that religion, in their mind, is responsible for war" or that "they have no compunction about stating that literally all historical violent conflict since man climbed down from the trees is based upon the 'delusion' provided by religion".
Vox Day very specifically makes this error. For example, back on page 99:
No reasonable person can claim that Day's "ergo" even remotely follows from what he quoted.
That's what I've objected to. Many of the "New Atheists" make claims that can be legitimately challenged (Harris in particular is prone to sweeping overstatements) but it'd be nice if they were attacked for what they actually say rather than a strawman,
exaggeratedhyperbolic parody of what they say.OK, so let's split hairs over what Vox Day or sundry others might have said or not said. That will advance the debate, boy oh boy.
May I remind everyone that Mr. Ingles' original challenge was: "Actually, if you could come with some quotes to illustrate that the so-called "New Atheists" you list actually believe that "religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia", I'd appreciate it. I've seen them argue that it's wrong and a major source of trouble, but that's not the same thing.
I'd really appreciate quotes from Dennett in particular…"
making no acknowledgement that his original challenge was satisfied immediately, Mr. Ingles proceeds to lead us on a rabbit trail, the primary criteria of which seems to be, just how much do the New Atheists hate religion?
Mr. Ingles says it isn't as bad as Vox Day says. OK, fine. New Atheists only hate religion moderately.
Is it settled now?