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

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. 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.hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Re: 13 I'm not familiar with Charles Kimball and the Sam Harris quote says nothing about violence, but instead is talking about how the idea of religious tolerance often stifles criticism of religiously motivated violence. (As a side note, Harris and others don't advocate institutionalized religious intolerance or discrimination, but rather a kind of social intolerance and a culture people feel freer to criticize religion). Even the Dawkins quote supports the quote in the original post. He's saying that religion can provide a motivation for violence, not that it is the ONLY one or that if we get rid of religion we will eliminate violence.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Nathaniel: For some documentation on communist regimes and crimes against humanity, see: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240247758&sr=8-1toc_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

In #48 StephenB wrote:
"The answer to that question illuminates difference between atheism and theism with respect to their treatment of other human beings and the actual number of people killed. The atheists have the bigger numbers by a factor of about a thousand to one."
So, morality is a function of quantity: if something (atheism/religion) results in harm and/or death to X, it is less morally reprehensible than something that results in harm and/or death to X+n, right? Ergo, according to StephenB's view of morality, if he kills one person, that is 20 times less morally wrong than someone who kills 20 people? Terrific! He can now go out and randomly kill a dozen people, and justify this by pointing to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, right?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

And, when the allegation is that atheism is the source of all of the evils of the modern world, the vast majority of the commentators at this website again agree, but when religion is alleged to be the source of those same evils, the conclusion is that “religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.”Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

There are a few facts that we have to face here. Theists accept an objective moral roadmap in the form of the natural moral law; atheists don't. With respect to life issues, the natural law provides both a positive and a negative component, because all aspects of morality exist as composite truths and are based on an objetive reality. Example: [A] Negative=Thou Shalt Not Murder; [B] Positive=Thou Shalt respect the inherent dignity of every human being In other words, we are not to commit murder BECAUSE humans have inherent dignity, and humans have human dignity BECAUSE they are made in the "image and likeness of God." So, which belief systems acknowledge that human beings were made in God's image? Judeo/Christianity----Yes Islam-----------no Atheism---------no Some atheists establish a subjective moral code against murder, but they cannot justify it because most [Humanist Manifesto I] do not believe that humans have inherent dignity, and the few that do [Humanist Manifesto III] cannot ground it in anything. So atheists' moral code, to the extent that they have one, has no intellectual force, and its moral destination is unclear. Given these facts, who is more likely to follow the roadmap and reach the moral destination? Is it the theists, who affirm the reality of the map but sometimes fail to follow it out of weakness. Or, is it the atheists who have no map at all and, therefore, have no idea about any kind of moral objective? The answer to that question illuminates difference between atheism and theism with respect to their treatment of other human beings and the actual number of people killed. The atheists have the bigger numbers by a factor of about a thousand to one.StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

tribune7, you're right. My apologies. 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.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Barry, perhaps I am parsing the sentence wrong. If the emphasis is on "some", and is not meant to imply that everyone who has no faith believes that all things are permitted to them," then I have misread the sentence. On the other hand, if it truly is meant to say all who have no faith believe that all things are permitted to them," then I have read it correctly. Can you clarify? Do you agree that this sentence is not meant to imply that "all who have no faith believe that all things are permitted to them?"hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

But the real Leopold and Loeb were motivated by money. No they weren't. tribune7_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them
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.Dave Wisker_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Hazel --I’m an atheist, and I certainly don’t think all things are permitted. Why?tribune7_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

hazel and David Kellogg continue to strain to take offense at the following statement: “and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them” Again, the statement was aimed at neither of you personally. I can only imagine that you are straining to take personal offense as a way to score rhetorical (if not logical) points in the debate, because 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.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

hazel, I agree. The claim that "and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them" is indeed offensive. It sounds like a bad summary of Rope, the Hitchcock movie inspired by the Leopold and Loeb case. But the real Leopold and Loeb were motivated by money.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, I don't think those questions are particularly answerable. But assuming the raw numbers for people killed are right (which I don't for either set of numbers), can you express the killings as a percent of world population at the time?David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

The original quote said of atheists, "and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them" This is both inaccurate and offensive. In a comment Barry writes,
... where offense was neither explicitly intended nor implied on any reasonable reading of the text.
I think a reasonable reading of the line I quoted is offensive. I'm an atheist, and I certainly don't think all things are permitted.hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Re #16 vjtorley provides some very interesting links. I really liked “Which Has Killed More People - Christianity Or Gun Control?” by Matthew White at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm . White sensibly breaks down the crude question - did religion cause wars? into more detailed questions: Were the perpetrators Christian? Were the perps from a traditionally Christian society? Was the Christianity mainstream? Was the conflict mostly religious? Was the conflict partly religious? He gets mixed results. The crusades clearly answer YES to most of the questions. The first world war gives an answer YES to the first question but not to the others. Now replace these questions with their atheist equivalents and ask them of the 20th century communist wars and massacres. Were the perpetrators atheist? YES Were the perps from a traditionally atheist society? NO Was the atheism mainstream? not sure how to apply that to atheism. Was the conflict mostly atheist? NO Was the conflict partly athiest? hardly - it was about class, economics, and paranoia. Very few people were killed because they were religious.Mark Frank_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

I think it would be simpler if you stopped posting outrageous statements and following them up with an aw shucks, little ole innocent me? attitude. (The same thing happened with the Hitler posts some weeks ago.)David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Interesting. Recently there has been a string of posts to this website (most of them authored by Barry Arrington and Denyse O'Leary) to the effect that "Darwinism" is directly and causally linked to most of the atrocities of the 20th century. Now we have a post in which the stated thesis is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.. So, when the allegation is that "Darwinism" is the source of all of the evils of the modern world, the vast majority of the commentators at this website heartily agree, but when religion is alleged to be the source of those same evils, the conclusion is that "religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant." 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...Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg: “Hart — and [Barry] — need to paint with a finer brush.” Or perhaps you should not be so hyper-sensitive and always straining to take offense where where offense was neither explicitly intended nor implied on any reasonable reading of the text.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

mauka, do you actually have something to say in response to the point of the post, i.e., that men kill for a wide variety of reasons and there is no reason to single out religious belief as the sole or even primary motivation for violence? If not, kindly move along to another site and let the grownups discuss the post.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Okay, so Barry didn't mean it when he wrote:
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.
So something that the "new atheists" don't believe at all, much less dogmatically, would be inexplicable on rational grounds if they actually did believe it. Got it. And an ordained Baptist minister tells us that "more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history." What was the point of this thread again?mauka_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

My father, my brother, my sister, my sister-in-law, my brother-in-law -- all these, twentieth-century atheists, are members of a "class" that Hart defines as "especially prolifically homicidal."David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Barry, the sentence says: "Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted." He makes no mention of any specific event and does not distinguish between leaders and followers. Hart -- and you -- need to paint with a finer brush.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

uoflcard, you're arguing in favor of a post that doesn't exist.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg’s response is reasonable enough except he suggests that Hart is attacking all atheists as prolifically homicidal, not just the maniacal dictators I mention above. Not so. Hart points to the history of the 20th century as evidence to support the statement. The most reasonable interpretation is that he is pointing to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist, militantly atheist, dictators of their ilk.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

There’s nothing particularly controversial about the passage except for the comment that “this last class [of atheist] is especially prolifically homicidal,” which is a gratuitous slap at the non-religious. (No, Barry, he is not merely slamming a few maniacal dictators but atheists as a “class.”) Since the post ends with another such gratuitous slap by the author, the post and the quote are at least consistent.
First, I also didn't like that slant against atheism in the post or quote. It hinders conversation of what really matters, that one is not more likely to kill just because one believes in God. It is not particularly controversial for anyone who is honest and rational, but there are people selling millions of books, touring the world, spreading the message that atheism is the only safe "belief" system. Dawkins' website is a self-proclaimed "oasis of reason", and he has books for sale there that feature titles such as "the enemies of reason". It is nothing but deceitful glorification of his religion.uoflcard_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Adel DiBagno substitutes sneering sarcasim for reasoned argument. Way to go Adel. Thanks for helping to prove my point.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

There's nothing particularly controversial about the passage except for the comment that "this last class [of atheist] is especially prolifically homicidal," which is a gratuitous slap at the non-religious. (No, Barry, he is not merely slamming a few maniacal dictators but atheists as a "class.") Since the post ends with another such gratuitous slap by the author, the post and the quote are at least consistent.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

djmullen is seriously confused. He accuses me of calling Hitler an atheist. DJ, did you actually read the post to which you are responding? It does not even mention Hitler. Was he an atheist? I don’t know, but it seems likely that, as tribune7 points out, he was a Jew and Christian hating pagan. So, whether Hitler was a theist or an atheist is beside the point of the post. The point of the post, DJ, is that both atheists and theists kill. Thus, theism and atheism are variables; only killing is constant. Therefore, there is no good, far less compelling, reason to single out religious belief for censure. Write that down. Think on it. Then see if you can write a comment that actually responds to it instead of something that was never said or implied in the post.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Barry, have you been drinking? Very little media boosterism is based on reason. If Mondays tend to make you think a little too fondly of bare bodkins, by all means stay away from HuffingtonPost et al today. MSM storylines, c. 2009: The New Atheists are champions of reason. ID is creationism. AGW is a proven scientific fact. Embryonic stems cells cure blindness. “Gay marriage” skeptics are hateful bigots. Racism and sexism are still thriving, despite the fact that 50% of the workforce is female and the President is black. Fidel is still a dreamer with a beard. The Rosenbergs are still innocent. God is still dead. And did anybody tell you that Bush knew about 9/11? The Boomer Left controls the MSM. Hard to tell whether the current contagion of exuberant irrationality is a sign of the apocalypse or its own immanent demise. On rainy days and Mondays, we lean toward the former.allanius_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply