Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

Can anyone possibly doubt that these claims are true. They are practically self-evident. Thus, the currency of the “religion is the cause of all violence” dogma currently fashionable among the new atheists is all but inexplicable on rational grounds.

Comments

If you really think that 5 minutes of Googling gives you enough perspective to criticize an entire movement, I don't know what to say. As someone else pointed out, one of the people you quoted is not even an atheist - Kimball is a Baptist minister. If you are truly interested in these topics, I suggest you go read some of the new atheist literature. I think they get a bad rap mainly because of their inflammatory titles (no doubt encouraged by their publishers to sell more books) and from people who think they understand what they are saying but who haven't actually read the books (as you and Barry are doing).DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

. . . the simple-minded, elementary logical steps linking Darwinian evolution to mass murder.
It sounds like you're saying that people who do bad things based on their understanding of "Darwinian evolution" tend to have a "simple-minded" understanding of it. Is that your position?Ludwig_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "The fact that if you believe that man is made in the image of God then you believe that people have inherent dignity does NOT imply that if you don’t believe that man is made in the image of God then you don’t believe people have inherent dignity." It is not a case of believing, but rather a case of providing a rational justification for that which you believe. Have you got that yet? If you had read the comments thoroughly, you would know that. I made it clear that SOME atheists believe in human dignity, so it should be obvious that your objection is irrelevant. ----Hazel: "This is basic logic, taught in about 9th grade, I believe: the inverse of a conditional does not necessarily have the same truth value as the conditional itself." I find that passage very irritating. I don't want to be unkind here, but I thought I made it understood that I don't accept you as an authority on logic, in spite of all your claims as an expert. Further, I think I also made it clear that I prefer to rely on my own training on that same subject, which is considerable. I would rather not wield my credentials, and I would prefer that you refrain from that resorting to that same tactic. Here is a clue: If you can do logic, you will not have to announce that fact to the world. If you can't, no autobiographical references will save you. So, please just make your points without any references to logic 101, so I don't have to call into question your own competency on the matter. Just make your case. If you would read the first paragraph more carefully, you would understand the concept of rational justification. Let me provide the sequence for you once again: Belief in the image and likeness of God >>>leads to a rational justification for inherent dignity>>>which leads to a positive reason to keep a negative mandate, Thou shalt not kill. As an atheist, you may well believe in inherent dignity, but you have yet to provide any rational justification for it. For all I know, you may actually have one that makes sense, and, if that is the case, I look forward to your explanation. It is all clear now?StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

DanSLO wrote:
I just realized that you didn’t actually post those quotes, it was “angryoldfatman”. Disregard that, but I think my point still stands.
My comment at #13 was just quotes gleaned from five minutes with Google of (what I thought were) prominent atheists. Sidebar: I don't know much about Kimball, but according to my five minute Goggle stint his book When Religion Becomes Evil is a favorite among atheists, along with of course The God Delusion, The End of Faith, Religion Poisons Everything, etc. These intellectuals attempt to mitigate their radicalism with soothing, disingenuous sop-throwing, but their message is consistent: religion (in particular Christianity) must be destroyed. Why must Christianity be destroyed if it is basically harmless, especially the form that the so-called "moderates" practice? Once again, the message from the atheist vanguard is clear: it is dangerous. Well, how is it dangerous? Let's revisit the Dawkins quote: I think there is a logical path from religion to doing terrible things… (Context: The terrible things he's talking about here are things like crashing loaded airplanes into populated skyscrapers.) This is the point pounded home time and time again in the New Atheist literature, even in this very thread - religion is dangerous because it incites otherwise normal people to do violence, particularly murder, and often mass murder. The simple-minded sycophants mentioned in my comment in #13 make the elementary logical steps necessary to believe that all violence is caused by religion. Just like Klebold, Harris, and Hitler (on whose birthday they purposefully planned their spree to celebrate) made the simple-minded, elementary logical steps linking Darwinian evolution to mass murder.angryoldfatman_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Allen ManNiell, "So which is it: does “Darwinian atheism” or religion cause human depravity, or could it be that human depravity is caused by something else? Just curious…" Isn't all of the above caused by Darwinian evolution ;) Evolution alone is supposed to account for everything, right? Isn't religion caused by evolution? Isn't atheism caused by evolution? It would seem that everything is caused and explained--if we are wholly explicable by evolution--by evolution.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington [25]
Adel DiBagno substitutes sneering sarcasim for reasoned argument. Way to go Adel. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
Barry, you seem quick to make harsh judgments. What point did I help you prove and how did I help?Adel DiBagno_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Ludwig, I'll add (3) Barry's belief that Eric Harris's motivation was "rational."David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

To clarify, Harris did shoot one girl who said she believed in God. That was Valeen Schnurr, who survived (not Cassie Bernall). But they did not set out to target anybody; they planned to blow up the whole school. When the bomb failed, they went to plan B.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

I don't know what's more frightening, (1) the idea that some atheists would kill because they don't fear divine retribution or (2) the idea that the only thing keeping some religious people from killing is the threat of divine retribution. Are there any believers here who would admit to being in the second category? That is, would anyone honestly have killed someone by now if not for fear of divine retribution?Ludwig_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

I just realized that you didn't actually post those quotes, it was "angryoldfatman". Disregard that, but I think my point still stands.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

tribune7: According to your logic, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon cultures should have a significantly lower rate of murder and all other violent crimes per capita than, say, Japan. True?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

One slight correction: I think it would be more accurate to say that Harris and Klebold were both sociopaths, not psychopaths. The difference is important, as psychopaths are both irrational and insane, whereas sociopaths are usually neither. Andrea Yates was a psychopath, Harris and Klebold were sociopaths. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that sociopaths become mass murderers. They do whatever it takes to further their own interests to the exclusion of all others, even if their ultimate goal is to become the most famous mass murderer of all time. And of course sociopaths can do so within a religious framework just as easily as they can outside of one. Their religion, or lack thereof, is therefore not the causative factor in their sociopathy. To be as clear as possible: regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) sociopaths lack any form of human empathy, whereas psychopaths are sufficiently deranged that their capacity for empathy is monstrously misdirected. Andrea Yates, in her twisted frame of mind, believed that she was doing the right thing for her children by killing them, thereby saving them from a life of inevitable sin and an eternity in Hell. Harris wanted to be famous as the greatest mass murderer of his generation. There is a world of difference between the two.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Again, show some evidence to support your claims. The three quotes you posted earlier don't support your claims at all. If it really is as self-evident as you claim, it should be easy. From my understanding of the new atheist position, they see religion as being divisive, encouraging tribalism and discouraging rational thought, which often leads to violence. That is not the same thing as claiming that religion is the sole root of all evil or whatever. I'm seriously not trying to be obtuse here, but you can't make sweeping claims like you did earlier without backing it up.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Allen-- How many murderers have been stopped by the 6th commandment? So you do think we would be better off without it? For that matter, if the 6th commandment somehow stops people from committing murder, then those cultures (and those time periods in our culture) in which the 6th commandment is unknown should be riddled with murderers, right? They are, Allen. The world B.C. (much less before Moses) was a much more violent place.tribune7_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Haha, right, David, I forgot about that. Religious murderers are always irrational and insane and therefore their religion is not causally related to their murderousness, but atheist murderers are always rational and sane and therefore their atheism is causally related to their murderousness. Sorry I messed up on that one...Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

No, Allen, Yates was crazy, Harris was rational. See how that works?David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Barry, I know you were represented some of the families. That doesn't make you correct. My view of Harris as a psychopath and Klebold as depressive comes from the new book by Dave Cullen, which has been very widely and well reviewed. As for targeting atheists. The New York Times review of Cullen's book notes:
A boy who witnessed the murders in the school library told people afterward that a slain student, a fellow evangelical named Cassie Bernall, was asked by one of the killers if she believed in God. “Yes, I believe in God,” he said she replied. Two other witnesses, both sitting near Cassie, heard no such thing, and Cullen goes on to say that a 911 tape from that day “proved conclusively” that she hadn’t uttered these words. It didn’t matter. The story caught the imagination of the evangelical world, and Cassie’s mother, Misty Bernall, wrote a book, “She Said Yes,” that has since sold more than one million copies.
David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

And Andrea Yates drowned her children in the bathtub, one by one, because of her religious beliefs, right? We can keep this up all day, and what does it "prove"? To me, it illustrates that "...religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant." Wasn't that precisely the point of this thread?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

In [55] DanSLO claims (or at least strongly implies) that he has no idea what I’m talking about when I say the new atheists want to point to religious belief as the root of all evil. The only response to that is, give me a break. If you do not acknowledge the self-evident, there is no point in talking to you.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

tribune7: How many murderers have been stopped by the 6th commandment? For that matter, if the 6th commandment somehow stops people from committing murder, then those cultures (and those time periods in our culture) in which the 6th commandment is unknown should be riddled with murderers, right? So it should be a fairly easy task to show that murderers now incarcerated in prisons have never heard of the 6th commandment, but those who have not committed murder have, right? Or am I missing something here - is there, in fact (demonstrated by empirical observation) a causal relationship between having been exposed to the 6th commandment and one's tendency to commit murder, and if so, where is that evidence (direct citations to primary references please).Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg writes: “Barry Arrington, Eric Harris was a classic psychopath and Dylan Klebold was a suicidal depressive. They were not motivated by anything rational. I’m not sure what makes you post things like this (or the Hitler posts earlier) beyond the desire to goad. Your protestations notwithstanding, you’re clearly smart enough to know they are simplistic and offensive. It’s come to the point where your basic tactic is to loosely link a perceived enemy (atheism, Darwinism) with some historical or present evil, then sit back and accuse others of jumping to conclusions.” Mr. Kellogg, you are quite simply wrong as a factual matter. Columbine is something about which I know a great deal. You see, I represented the families of six of the children killed ten years ago today. In that capacity I spent literally hundreds of hours studying every aspect of the case. I read every word of Harris’ and Klebold’s written journals; listened to every minute of their audiotapes; and watched every moment of their videotapes. I know what I am talking about. Harris (and to a lesser extent Klebold) was a self conscious atheist and disciple of Frederick Nietzsche. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of the facts or a liar. Harris knew he was going to be world famous, and he spent an inordinate amount of time explaining his motivations for the benefit of posterity. Over and over and over again he talked about the stupidity of religious belief; the superiority of reason; and the futility of attempting to bind to a code of morality those, like him, who “knew” that right and wrong are meaningless concepts. He was smart, even brilliant, and he learned his lessons well. As if to put an exclamation point on this, he singled out religious believers for execution. He asked his victims, “Do you believe in God?” Those who said “yes” he shot in the head as he asked, “Why?” Don’t tell me Harris was crazy, that he was not motivated by anything rational. Just the opposite is true. He thought long and hard about the logical consequences of the ideas he had been taught. He reached conclusions – evil conclusions to be sure, but not irrational – and he acted on those conclusions. Don’t try to comfort yourself with the “he was just a crazy punk” theory. I know better.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

And if you now deny this, then why post this comment (#40):
"...the statement is without the slightest doubt true for some atheists. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Columbine massacres by atheists Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. One need look no further than the journals of the two killers for proof that they believed themselves to be beyond normal rules of morality and that belief was grounded in their atheism. QED."
Because it is also "without the slightest doubt true" that Both Harris and Kelbold breathed oxygen and drank liquids containing water. Shall we therefore conclude (using your logic) that breathing oxygen and drinking water are causally related to being mass murderers? Because the logic of your statement (quoted above) is clearly that atheists "...believe themselves to be beyond normal rules of morality."Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

PaulT asks what this point has to do with science. Nothing in particular. Is that all you’ve got Paul? No, I was asking what this post has to do with intelligent design, and while there is nothing wrong in going off topic, posts like this only add fuel to those that charge that ID is a religiously motivated endeavour. But to answer your question - yes - that is all I am asking. Is brevity a problem here?PaulT_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Barry, something else to remember: The command "Thou Shalt Not Murder" was not made in a vacuum. There was a reason for it. If murder was not a reality there would have been no reason for the command. Something for OT haters to ask: if the 6th Commandment should be repealed would their lives be safer?tribune7_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

The reason I ask is that you and Denyse O'Leary have posted multiple times on precisely this point: that both "Darwinism" and (especially) the atheism that you assert naturally follows from it are directly responsible for most of the human depravity of the 20th century (to the self-righteous applause of most of the regular commentators here). Do you now deny this, and if so, why?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

In #53 Barry Arrington asks:
"...there is no reason to single out religious belief for special opprobrium. Do you acknowledge that?"
Of course I acknowledge that. Do you acknowledge that neither atheism nor "Darwinism" should be singled out for exactly the same kind of special opprobrium? Remember, the heart of the quote that heads this post is:
"...religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant."
Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Barry, you're doing the exact same thing in the original post - you're responding to an argument ("religion is the cause of all violence") that was never made. If that was just hyperbole as you claim, then you should probably flesh out what exactly your point is before asking people to address it.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker writes: “And some have no faith yet do not kill because they have the capacity for empathy, and would not inflict on others what they would not want inflicted on themselves.” OK Dave. What is your point? That not all atheists are cold-blooded killers? Again, you are responding to an argument that was never made. No one said they were. Would you care to address the point of the post or do you concede it?Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill asks: “So which is it: does “Darwinian atheism” or religion cause human depravity, or could it be that human depravity is caused by something else? Just curious…” Your question is beside the point of the post. This post does not attempt to fathom the causes of human depravity. The point of the post is that the depravity of man is a constant. Religious belief and atheism are variable. Killers abound in both camps. Therefore, there is no reason to single out religious belief for special opprobrium. Do you acknowledge that?Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Hazel, what do you believe gives people inherent dignity? I don't disagree with your logic, I'm just curious. I'm also interested in your response to tribune7 at 40.Berceuse_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply