Violence is Inherent in Atheist Politics

_{Barry Arrington

October 10, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Progressive hero Ta-Nehisi Coates (an atheist) is conflicted about whether to bring on the guillotines. From a recent interview with Vox:

When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’

Materialist ideas have entailments, including (1) God does not exist; (2) good and evil do not exist as objective transcendent ontological categories; (3) God, who does not exist, cannot endow men with inalienable rights; and (4) men are not image bearers of a non-existent God; they are jumped up hairless apes.

If there is no good and evil and no God-endowed rights, by what standard does the progressive define the eponymous “progress” they claim to want to achieve? Certainly, there is no transcendent standard. The answer is that progressives want what that want. Theirs is a political philosophy bound by nothing and defined by their unbounded will to power.

Coates rejects the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. A non-existent God does not endow men with the right to life and liberty. Jumped up hairless apes have no inherent rights. So why not lop their heads off if they get in the way of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ pursuit of the greater good – i.e., Ta-Nehisi Coates’ idiosyncratic take on economic and racial justice. After all, as every tyrant from Robespierre to Pol Pot knew, you’ve got to crack a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelet.

Comments

I was waiting for this. You didn’t disappoint. You are nothing if not predictable.
And your argument is nothing but not predictable, despite presenting criticism of it. Let me summarize for you. If knowledge comes from authoritative sources, and if there are no authoritative sources there can be no knowledge. If moral knowledge comes from authoritative sources, and there are no authoritative sources there can be no moral knowledge. Both of those statements hinge on a epistemological view about knowledge. Specifically that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. That idea is implicit in your statements, yet you have neither argued for or responded to significant criticism of it. Apparently, you think you don't need to because you're preaching to the crowd? You'll have to excuse me for not finding your non-argument very persuasive.critical rationalist_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Seversky,
As for morality, of course it’s subjective. How could it be anything else?
Based on what? Your subjective opinion about morality? Notice, you are making a universal claim about moral truth. You are positing the premise that there is no moral truth for you or anyone else. But that’s a self-refuting claim. Your claiming it is true there is no truth. (Please think that through.) How can you even make such an argument? How can your subjective opinion be the basis of truth that has any bearing on anyone else if there is no moral truth? What’s subjectively true for you is not true for me. Wittgenstein was right (from an atheistic perspective) when he said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I have said here many before, if I was an atheist, I wouldn’t bother anyone. It’s absurd to try to impose your non-beliefs on anyone else. Cynicism about life, meaning and morality is not a solution for anyone. The following is from a debate I and others had seven years ago , on another site, with someone who went by the moniker doctor(logic):
JAD: Morality concerns things that are real effects in the real world. Herding men, women and children into a railway car so that they can be transported to a concentration camp where they are going to be slaughtered like cattle is a moral decision that results in real men, real women, and real children with real human rights really suffering and being really put to death. There is nothing subjective about any of that. doctor(logic): No one is disputing that people are objective, or that people’s suffering is objective, or that people’s deaths are objective. These are all material facts. What is being disputed is whether our dislike of those things is a reflection of something objective beyond the material facts. So far, you haven’t made a case for it. You’ve simply said that you really, really, really don’t like those things. Well, so what? I really, really, really don’t like them either. But that doesn’t mean that our dislikes are anything more than dislikes.
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2010/10/morality-without-god-would-i-care/#comment-24036 Later in that same thread, I quoted serial killer Ted Bundy who said the following to one of his victims. (She fortunately survived.)
Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring the strength of character to throw off its shackles. … I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self. (p17 Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, by Louis P. Pojman & James Fieser)
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2010/10/morality-without-god-would-i-care/#comment-24049 I’m sure that most people feel subjectively appalled by Bundy’s reasoning. But according to moral subjectivism nothing about his moral thinking or choices was really wrong, because nothing is objectively or really right or wrong.john_a_designer_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
Oppenheimer very much soul searched his motives . . . and he set up, World Academy of Art and Science. You also should know that Andrei Sakharov (inventor of Russia’s first thermonuclear device), turned to activism against the Soviet regime in the 1960s.
What is your point? That even though these men created the most destructive weapons in the history of the world they did some good things? Next I suppose you will say "Hitler loved his dog, so I guess he was alright."Barry Arrington_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

rvb8
However, if it came to choice between trusting, a living, modern scientist, and talking to them. And trusting and talking to a firm religious person, and talking to them, the scientist would earn my trust, and conversation hands down.
Here's a clue rvb8: Your dichotomy between "scientist" and "theist" is a false one. The vast majority of scientists have been theists, including some of the greatest. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, even Einstein (he was a pantheist in the mode of Spinoza).Barry Arrington_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

rvb8
I’m not sure of your image of crazed scientists deliberately creating sarin or mustard gas to kill people is accurate.
I never said they were crazed. Liar. What is your point? Do you think they accidentally created sarin and mustard gas? Or maybe you meant they did not think the gasses would kill people? Your post just goes to show there is nothing so idiotic that an atheist will not spout it in defense of atheism.Barry Arrington_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Yes, under which rule in The Rules of Atheism would violence be excluded? Andrewasauber_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

From Tim Keller’s – Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical
…Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov sarcastically summarized the ethical reasoning of secular humanism like this: “Man descended from apes, therefore we must love one another.” The second clause does not follow from the first. If it was natural for the strong to eat the weak in the past, why aren’t people allowed to do it now? I am not, of course, arguing that we should not love one another. Rather, I’m saying that, given the secular view of the universe, the conclusion of love or social justice is no more logical than the conclusion to hate or destroy. These two sets of beliefs—in a thorough-going scientific materialism and in a liberal humanism—simply do not fit with one another. Each set of beliefs is evidence against the other. Many would call this a deeply incoherent view of the world. If the values of secular humanism cannot be inferred or deduced from a materialistic universe, then where did they come from? - P42
-------
Nietzsche’s point is this. If you say you don’t believe in God but you do believe in the rights of every person and the requirement to care for all the weak and the poor, then you are still holding on to Christian beliefs, whether you will admit it or not. Why, for example, should you look at love and aggression—both parts of life, both rooted in our human nature—and choose one as good and reject one as bad? They are both part of life. Where do you get a standard to do that? If there is no God or supernatural realm, it doesn’t exist." … Even Nietzsche, however, cannot escape his own scalpel. He blasted secular liberals for being inconsistent and cowardly. He believed that calls for social bonding and benevolence for the poor and weak meant “herd-like uniformity, the ruin of the noble spirit, and the ascendency of the masses.” He wanted to turn from the “banal creed” of modern liberalism to the tragic, warrior culture (the “Ubermensch” or “Superman”) of ancient times. He believed the new “Man of the Future” would have the courage to look into the bleakness of a universe without God and take no religious consolation. He would have the “noble spirit” to be “superbly self-fashioning” and not beholden to anyone else’s imposed moral standards. All of these declarations by Nietzsche compose, of course, a profoundly moral narrative. Why is the “noble spirit” noble? Why is it good to be courageous, and who says so? Why is it bad to be inconsistent? Where did such moral values come from, and what right does Nietzsche have, by his own philosophy, to label one way of living noble or good and other ways bad? In short, he can’t stop doing what he tells everyone else to stop doing. - P47-49
Heartlander_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Perhaps the best approach I've seen relative to the discussions here is going back to that Old Testament and try to fully understand the 10 Commandments, which is a theistic moral code. Dennis Prager has written a wonderful book titled "The 10 Commandments: Still The Best Moral Code" at http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-ten-commandments-dennis-prager/1121119905?ean=9781621574170 I highly recommend it. I've also given it my take at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/islamjihad-and-the-ten-commandments/ I'd be interested in readers comments regarding Prager's book, my analysis, as well as general comments on the 10 Commandments. Please note before commenting that Prager, myself, as well as the 10 Commandments themselves, assert that "God is" But even if you believe "God isn't", then what is your take on the historicity of what is said?DonJohnsonDD682_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

@rvb8, would you trust Nikola Tesla? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nikola-tesla-the-eugenicist-eliminating-undesirables-by-2100-130299355/ The eugenics movement that inspired Nazi Germany was not invented by the religious, though many were patsies.EricMH_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

EricMH: But violence is not inherent in theism, unlike atheism. Only theists try to bring about peace. There was quite a lot of God sanctioned violence depicted in the Old Testament which is considered Holy Scripture by Jews, Christians and Muslims. I can appreciate that God changed his mind but you can't just brush the issue aside. Only theists try to bring about peace? Really? Within atheism any difference of opinion ultimately comes down to determinism, and there is no hope of changing anyone’s mind. The only recourse in that situation is violence. This is such a straw-man caricature; if I portrayed all Christians based on the behaviour of some during the Inquisition you'd call foul. I assure you that most atheists are like most people: they want a calm, peaceful life for themselves and their descendants. They DO NOT resort to violence to settle disagreements. In fact, not believing in life after death, I would suggest that atheists are the last people to think that violence and death solves anything in the long run. This especially makes sense if atheists believe theism is the source of all problems and that people are genetically predisposed to be theists, especially non-Western people. The logical conclusion is the elimination of those who have not evolved enough to be atheists. Hence the big push for abortion and birth control overseas. You have a very biased view of most atheists and atheism. If I upheld the views of some radical wing-nut Christians as examples of the whole group you'd object. Don't assume that the opinions of a few (linked with your interpretations and fears) are indicative of the entire sector.JVL_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Barry: And your response: “well some theists killed some people 3,000 years ago.” You are pathetic. Yes but it wasn't just 3000 years ago was it? During the Crusades the streets of Jerusalem reportedly ran with blood when the Christians retook the city. The Cathars were brutally put down by the Catholic Church as were the Waldensians. There were waves of Pogroms against the Jews in Europe; in York, for example, quite a few were burned alive. Martin Luther famously aired his views of what should happen to the Jews. And how long has it been since a Christian attacked a doctor for performing legal abortions? I remember good old Christian southern boys lynching black people in the USA. All those things happened in the last millennia. Some in my lifetime. You may say that all of those atrocities were perpetrated by those whose Christian faith was misguided. But some of them claimed they were doing God's work. From an outside perspective it looks like there is no clear interpretation of Christian morals or standards. And this aside from the relatively peaceful disagreements that exist between various sects of Christianity regarding same-sex marriage, the ordination or women, the use of birth control, etc. Sometimes when people ask me if I'm a Christian I want to ask: what do you mean by that? because I'm not sure what a Christian really believes. Certainly historically the issue is blurred. It may be a bit better today but there is still plenty of ambiguity about certain issues at least.JVL_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Barry, the terrible inventions you mention are indeed used for killing. I'm not sure of your image of crazed scientists deliberately creating sarin or mustard gas to kill people is accurate. Many of these terrible discoveries are shear accidents, and decisions on how governments use them is most often forcibly taken away from scientists. I'm going to stick with my description of scientists, particularly the atheistic ones (examples of Muslim scientists desperately trying to get Pakistan the Bomb abound), being peacable. Oppenheimer very much soul searched his motives, and aid in the Manhatten Project. So much so that in 1960, with the full support of Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Joseph Rotblat, and other eminent scientists, and academics, he set up, World Academy of Art and Science.Just as ID has the Discovery Institute, so scientists worldwide have their society. You also should know that Andrei Sakharov (inventor of Russia's first thermonuclear device), turned to actavism against the Soviet regime in the 1960s. He campaigned against Nikolai Nuzdhin's membership to Russia's academy of sciences. Why? Nuzdhin was an adherent of Lysenko, and he also had a hand in imprisoning scientists in Stalin's day. No doubt you will point out Christian martyrs. We can play this game eternally. However, if it came to choice between trusting, a living, modern scientist, and talking to them. And trusting and talking to a firm religious person, and talking to them, the scientist would earn my trust, and conversation hands down. I've known far too many religious people.rvb8_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

@rvb8, you are correct there are many theists who are also violent. But violence is not inherent in theism, unlike atheism. Only theists try to bring about peace. Even the supposedly peaceable scientists you refer too, many of the atheistic scientists would like to wipe out most of humanity, and are arguably doing their best around the world through various forms of "hygienic" eugenics. That is the logical outcome of a worldview that cannot account for free will and reason, both necessary preconditions for peacefully sorting out differences. Within atheism any difference of opinion ultimately comes down to determinism, and there is no hope of changing anyone's mind. The only recourse in that situation is violence. This especially makes sense if atheists believe theism is the source of all problems and that people are genetically predisposed to be theists, especially non-Western people. The logical conclusion is the elimination of those who have not evolved enough to be atheists. Hence the big push for abortion and birth control overseas. Atheism is quite likely also driving the violence of the alt-right and Antifa; both are committed to a Darwinian understanding of humanity.EricMH_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Seversky,
All this quietly ignores the fact that the Old Testament . . .
I was waiting for this. You didn't disappoint. You are nothing if not predictable. Ta-Nehisi Coates all but calls for heads to roll 10 minutes ago. And your response: "well some theists killed some people 3,000 years ago." You are pathetic.
Of course morality is subjective. How could it be anything else?
That may be the stupidest question I have ever read.
If you want me to respect your interests then you must respect mine.
Really? That's all there is to it? Live and let live. Sing kumbaya. 100 million dead in the 20th century scream from their graves, "Seversky is an idiot." Coates announces he is ready to launch The Terror, v. 2.0 and Sev says, "What, me worry?" I fear the 21st century is going to make the 20th look like a walk in the park, and as the bodies pile up, Sev will be screaming "remain calm!" like the drum major in the parade scene from Animal House. God help us.Barry Arrington_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

I feel as if I'm on a Mobius Strip. Every few weeks or even at shorter intervals the, 'Atheists have no Morality', 'Darwin Led to Hitler/Stalin', 'Atheists are Violent' (as here), or variations on this theme emerge. UD: Yeah, like atheist Coates getting all wistful for the Terror YESTERDAY. This has been a religious theme since there was religion; 'You can not be good or peaceful without my god, and if you don't agree, I'll kill you!' Just ask Isis, or medieval Europe. UD: We do not say atheists cannot be good. Of course they can, especially in a culture like ours where they can take a free ride on centuries of Christian moral capital. What they cannot do is ground morality in anything other than subjective preference. Even they admit this. This has been explained to you many times rvb8. I must sadly conclude that you are not merely mistaken. You are a liar. If we look at the dominance of atheism and agnosticism within the scientific community world wide, we see a remarkably peaceful group of chaps, and chapesses. UD: You mean those chaps that designed and built atomic weapons that could destroy the world a thousand times over? Or the ones that created biological weapons that could kill every man, woman and child 100 times? Or maybe it was the ones who invented mustard gas or sarin? Are those the remarkably peaceful chaps you have in mind? Atheism leads to violence because of Stalin? No, actually, total power, totalitarian regimes lead to violence. UD: Atheism leads to violence because of Stalin? That is an aggressively stupid question. No one ever said that. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot killed millions because thjey had no respect for the inherent dignity of human beings. And they had no respect for the inherent dignity of human beings because they were atheists who did not believe that every human is created in the image of God. You know those all powerful theocracies, of yesteryear. The times when God and religion had the power and self respecting atheists like John Stuart Mill, in the early 1800s thought it wiser to keep his lack of faith to himself. For fear of violence. UD: Yes, there have been some bad theists? What is your point? If you want to stack up bodies by the tens of millions, you need atheists. No, atheism doesn't lead to violence. UD: Said the idiot the day after an atheist got all wistful for the Terror. Utter belief you are right, your faith is right, and every one else is wrong; coupled to toatal theocratic, government power, leads to violence. UD: And you think Coates is not supremely confident that he is right? Fool Please keep your violent, religious, self righteousness to yourself. UD: Uh, I haven't called for The Terror v. 2.0. That's your boy Coates.rvb8_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Religous vs non-religious. Come on. Makes no difference. Murderous persons will commit murders. Period. The murderous proclivity has nothing to do with religions. The stats bare this out. So be honest about it. PS. Religion is bunk. So is atheism. Both side are clueless. And it's fun to watch from the sidelines.mike1962_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Seversky@8: "If you want me to respect your interests then you must respect mine." You "must"? Where'd you get that from? If you don't respect my interests I'm gonna kill you. That's all there is in your world.ronvanwegen_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

All this quietly ignores the fact that the Old Testament is riddled with stories of the most extreme and appalling violence perpetrated by God and his followers. Or the fact that in the two millennia following, a huge amount of blood was shed in conflicts between religions or between denominations within a religion. Violence, unfortunately, is inherent in humans whether theist or atheist. As for morality, of course it's subjective. How could it be anything else? Moralities can work just fine when they are based on shared or common interests and have the aim of protecting those interests. If you want me to respect your interests then you must respect mine. If we can agree on that then it's a much stronger basis for interpersonal moral obligation than being threatened with retribution by some supernatural enforcer if you don't follow its rules. What kind of morality is that?Seversky_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

JAD @ 6: Everything you state is true. A/mats embrace the delusion of universal rights while at the same time advocating for a belief system (Darwinian evolution) that specifically undermines their universal rights delusion. Very confused people.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

I made the following comment recently on another thread. It is worth repeating here:
Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligation there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. How can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights?
Many of our regular interlocutors here have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?john_a_designer_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Barry, there are two factors driving the trend to violence. One is, as you say, that when good and evil are adaptive illusions power is still real. It is, in fact, the only reality. But second, progressives (generally naturalist atheists or on their way to becoming so) are at war with reality. Serious big government wars against reality usually end in mass exterminations because there is always more reality out there to kill and it keeps coming back.News_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Dean @ 3: "...atheists are still at war with God." And everyone who believes in Him.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

...and go to websites and yell "Evolution!" all the louder while you wave your rainbow flags. Andrewasauber_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Violence is inherent in atheism. By any means necessary is always the atheist creed...when peaceful takeover fails. It's the Darwin way.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply