Do Dawkins and Dennett Incite to Hatred?

_{Barry Arrington

December 11, 2007

Philosophy, Religion}

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

I live in Arvada, Colorado, and for many years I attended the church associated with the YWAM shooting on Sunday. Earlier this year I befriended two of the young men going through the training program there, one from New Zealand and the other from England. I am numb with sorrow, and my prayers go up for the families of the victims.

The media is reporting that Matthew Murray posted the following on the web: “I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

Look at the last part of that quote closely. One wonders if Murray has been reading Dawkins or Dennett. By blaming the world’s ills on religious people do Dawkins and Dennett incite to hatred and make it more likely that tragedies of this sort can occur? I don’t know, but it is an interesting question.

Addition:

Surprisingly, several commenters have suggested that unless I can prove a direct causal relationship I should be quiet. Stuart Harris as much as says that unless I can show that Murray read an atheist book last Saturday and started killing people on Sunday then I should “shut the hell up.” Mr. Harris, let me clue you in. Human motivation is rarely simple, linear and direct. The standard you set is patently unreasonable. A multitude of variables contribute to human actions, and one of those variables is what I would call the “intellectual climate” of the culture. Are Dawkins and his ilk guilty of contributing to a climate of hatred (or at least animosity) against religious people generally and Christians in particular? Hitchens calls religion a “poison.” Isn’t it axiomatic that poison is bad and should be eradicated?

Mr. Harris, the killer said that Christians are to blame for most of the problems in the world. One wonders where he got that notion. I think it is a fair question to ask whether Darkins, Dennett and Hitchens have gone too far with their inflammatory rhetoric. You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, but thinking people ask questions. Are Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens directly responsible for Sunday’s murders? Obviously not. At the end of the day, my inquiry is not so much about “responsibility” as “irresponsibility.” Have the vituperative atheists been irresponsible in contributing to an intellectual climate that condones animosity toward religious people? It’s a fair question.

Comments

It looks like we now have the answer to the interesting question. The results of the search warrant on Matthew Murray's residence have been released. No Dawkins. No Dennett. No Hitchens. There was a prescription for alprazolam, a drug used to treat severe anxiety disorders, lots of gun and bomb making materials, and religious media including a Bible and a Book of Mormon. More interesting questions?specs_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Well said indeed. I add, that we need to look at the driving trend, the evolutionary materialism based, secular humanist [often statist-progressivist (i.e politicaly messianistic)] worldview and its agenda implications:
. . . materialism, however, has deeper problems. It argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance . . . . Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity . . . . As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead. As Francis Schaeffer and others have so ably pointed out, this inner contradiction explains modern man's dilemma and confusion. For, his soul — created by God, our real Maker — tells such a man that he is significant, but what he thinks he knows tells him that he is nothing but a random bit of rubbish cast up by an ultimately chaotic and purposeless universe. He therefore knows not which to believe, and so lives under a cloud of hopeless despair, "a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” It is consequently no surprise to detect the consistent theme that all of reality is ultimately meaningless in modern and post-modern Literature, in contemporary Philosophy, and in the Arts generally . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies. "Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home. Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences. Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable — for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the death camp. In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real world.
So, should we not now very seriously reconsider the want of solid empirical evidence for, the logically self-refuting nature and destructive moral-cultural implications of the evolutionary materialism that in the name of "science" [but falsely so-called] has largely taken over the control of our classrooms, courtrooms, policy-making bodies and mass media all across our civilisaiton? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Very well said.Forthekids_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

S. Wakefield Tolbert: Thanks! allanius: forthekids: tribune 7: All your points granted. Tragedies of this kind almost always require a multiplicity of causes in the short run. Take away any one factor and you may get a different result. If the young man hadn't been troubled, or if his religious training had been less reactionary, or if such training had not been followed by influences from a radically nihilistic subculture, or if medical intervention had not backfired, or if the de-Christianized culture at large had not set the table, perhaps the inner conflict that prompted the act would have been less severe and less likely to result in a violent act. Further, I would venture that something very personal and very recent occurred prior to the event that, in itself, may seem to have been the decisive factor---a snub, a broken dream, a lost relationship, or any emotional crisis that the young man simply could not or would not deal with. HOWEVER: We are left with the following questions: How do we account for the widespread despair and resentment that attends all of these events? For every one of these youth who finally crosses the line, there are probably hundreds who are thinking about it. How do we account for the almost complete disregard for human life? It is one thing to do away with one’s enemy in an act of vengeance, but it is quite another thing to take down everyone else in the vicinity as a means of achieving immortality. I submit to you that it is precisely the de-Christianizing of the culture that has brought this about. Consider the life lessons our narcissistic secularist culture is offering our youngest generation: We tell them that they deserve the best of everything, even if they have achieved nothing; that they have a right not to be offended by any idea, even if it is something that they need to hear ; that they should be immune from the embarrassment of failure, even if their performance is lacking; that they cannot control their passions, even if premature sex will ruin their lives; that they should not have to struggle in order to grow, even if there is no other way to reach maturity; that they should feel free to abort a life in the womb, even if that life is innocent and helpless; that they are nothing but risen beasts, even if the angels inside of them are crying to get out. Is this any way to build a well-ordered society? Our Judeo/Christian heritage once provided a decidedly different perspective on freedom. It was less about following the cravings of our appetites and more about following the dictates of our conscience.StephenB_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

That ideas have consequences should not be a surprise to anyone. When I read the statement that the shooter made, my thoughts were similar to Barry's. Had this guy been reading Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et.al.? Maybe we'll never know. But, what is clear is that something in his mind gave him justification for the actions he took that fateful night and morning. No doubt he felt he had been dealt with unfairly by some Christian(s) or others in his past. Was it enough to justify his "revenge" in his mind? Was it that coupled with a larger cultural context where ridiculing and showing animosity towards religion in general and Christians in particular is tolerated, and even encouraged by the makers of media? Did the shooter feel the culture had somehow given him "permission" to take out a few of the "bad guys"? We may never know what passed through his mind. What we do know is that his loathing towards Christians was real...and it was real enough to motivate him to take a gun and go on a killing spree. What was it that fed and nutured that loathing? If I were Dennett or Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens or any of the other of the so-called "new" atheists, I'd be asking myself some pretty tough questions about now. And the first question would be "how have I contributed to a cultural climate that has demonstrated such strong animosity towards Christians and people of faith that some are inspired to violence?" The irony here is obvious: these "new" atheists have ranted and railed against religion and Christianity claiming that it inspires all sorts of visciousness, hatred and violence. Have we now witnessed that fanatical atheism inspires the same?DonaldM_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Were the "antidepressants" Matthew was taking SSRIs? If so, that might be a more direct link than Dawkins and Dennett--although there can be no question that they are inciting a climate of general hostility toward Christains.allanius_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Trib: Yep. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

KF, Murray was clearly influenced by music. Something should be considered with regards to the criticism levied at Murray's church. While reflection and self-criticism can be helpful, his church did not teach him to kill strangers. Actually, his church clearly taught Murray that it was bad to kill/harm/abuse strangers. Outside influences, however, taught Murray that his church was bad, and, eventually, that everything his church stood for was bad -- including the exhortation to love your neighbor. Which led him to think killing strangers was something he should do. It's very important to keep that perspective in mind.tribune7_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

PPS: Interesting news update here -- though of course the usual disclaimers obtain for this always interesting but sometimes disappointing site. Occult and nihilism influences through some aspects of pop music are possible factors -- as is consistent with the way Murray reportedly dressed Columbine-style to attack at the church. In cites that seem to be likely to trace to MM, we can see the following list of claimed influences in the just linked:
"I have found myself in deep trances and other worlds through the usage of this drug and have found my life radically altered and changed and (sic) by it. I found this drug to be a powerful driving force and easy gateway into a world of sex, other drugs, rebellion, homosexuality, alcoholism and many other dark things. … What is this mind altering life changing drug that has such an incredible power? Well, one of the main persons who has helped make this drug a powerful force in my life has been Marilyn Manson. ... The drug that I use and am addicted to is commonly known in our culture as … Rock Music."
The convergence between secularist and neopagan de-Christianisation trends and pop culture is therefore probably relevant, especially as that is now a theme in the Dark Materials series by Pullman; which is being promoted through that $180 mn movie. We need to do some more thinking . . .kairosfocus_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

H'mm: This thread is getting very interesting indeed. The analysis is coming up with some very useful patterns and trends with likely consequences. I add by way of a bit of synthesis of remarks by FTK, StephenB and Nullasalus, that perhaps the most vulnerable to the sort of manipulation I pointed out in 93 and 104 are precisely those who are not fitting in well in their current reference group. (A close second are zealous romantic idealists who chafe at the imperfections of real-world communities and institutions.) We do need to think very carefully about where we are taking our civilisation. As for Stephen at 109 on:
Our youngest and most vulnerable have been steeped in an anti-Christian, anti-life philosophy almost from the age of reason. Sadly, most who educate them are either ignorant about or hostile toward the theological truths that shape freedom and prosperity.
That is because one of the first targets of the de-Christianising agenda was precisely teacher training institutions. Dewey, among others, was quite explicit on that. I find it astonishing to note that we are so often ignorant of the material contribution of Gospel ethics motivated people to our liberties [even as long litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom and the wider Western culture are insistently recited over and over again and again], but note also that for instance astonishingly few of us seem able to simply read with understanding. I recall for instance the hostile and dismissive reaction -- especially from those who should have been able to see immediately the rather obvious import of the excerpted and linked facts -- when I first put up and highlighted findings from the just linked in another blog. But, since this is a BarryA thread, let's stop short of making the usual lawyer jokes and directly use a legal example, the grand statement structure of the US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
Take a look at this in light of the sort of repeated proclamations of the Congress over the founding era as they repeatedly called the people of the nascent USA to repentance and reformation through calls for days of prayer and thanksgiving such as:
May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Indpependence]: In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations [i.e. the vast majority of the population], to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.
Of course, this is the US Congress just before issuing the DOI of July 1776. And, as the above linked notes document, this pattern continued across the founding era and was rooted in the covenantal understanding of Government and nationhood under God. ALL of this has long since been in the public record, and is easily accessible to the level of investigators who write major works on that era. So, why is it not in the contemporary accounts, or in the popular mindset? ANS: It does not fit the secularist favoured narrative and agenda. So it is simply missed or is misunderstood or ignored or even suppressed. That sounds rather familiar to me . . . So, at length, we see the force of StephenB's point: Make no mistake about it, once Christendom is destroyed, its blessings go with it. In particular, we need to think long and hard onteh moral consequences of evolutionary materialism, especially the undermining of morality and virtue, and the substiotution instead of the vicious and destructive principle that -- however it is disguised -- "might makes 'right' " Then, mix in a population that inevitably includes a significant number of disturbed and unstable youths with access to messages and means of violence 9which needs not include just guns -- recall that doctor with a car full of propane gas cylinders trying to set it off in an airport in Scotland only a few months ago). Add the insistent, public, too often celebrated targetting of Bible-believing Christians and the Christian faith as being "to blame for most of the problems in the world." Is a Matthew Murray really unexpected in such a situation? For that matter, with a few adjustments, is a 9/11 or a 7/7 really unexpected in such a situation? The answers should be obvious. Time to re-think . . . GEM of TKI PS: A bit off topic. I have been adding to my online notes in the always linked, and in particular have addressed the issue of the trichotomy of chance, necessity and agency, the snowflake and the like and the coherence of the CSI concept. This last in a new appendix on the significance of Dr Dembski's work in light of the state of the concept as summarised by TBO in TMLO in 1984. Thanks, again, to those who have interacted with me, whether by agreement or disagreement.kairosfocus_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I rarely comment on others' comments anymore. But that was a nice set of insights. I agree that when notions of human dignity and explanations of compassion are reduced to gene exchange theorems or that the mind and/or free will is but an illusion for replication purposes, we debased ourselves. In these scenarios we are no more important than roaches and rats. Thanks. --SWTS Wakefield Tolbert_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

forthekids -- you're right. OTOH, I think Barry is too.tribune7_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Oh joy. Another detour. Jason Newsted has not been with the band since 2001 and Metallica is not death metal.tribune7_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

When someone is broken, there are any number of things that may push them over the edge. Unfortunately, so much is easily accessible on the Internet these days, and for the loner who has been shoved around or ignored his whole life, the last thing he needs is to fall victim to the all the crap out there. It also appears that he felt he was never one of the "beautiful people" or part of the in crowd at the church youth groups. It looks as if Murray came from an over zealous "Christian" (if it can be called that) environment which was teetering on cult-like behavior. Unfortunately, his intensely sheltered life may have led him straight to the thing his parents wanted to keep him from the most. Unlike some "Christians" who seem to believe it best to hide their children from the world and make unreasonable demands on their lives, Christ actually spent much of his time with people whose views differed from his own. I think that may be why Christ had such compassion for the prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners. He understood both the sinner and the saint and loved them equally. If Murray had been showed more love and compassion growing up rather than condemnation at every turn, perhaps things would have been different for him?Forthekids_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Murray certainly got some ideas from death metal music.
I hear that Richard Dawkins was the first choice to replace Jason Newsted as bassist for Metallica, but turned them down because he felt he could spread more mayhem via The New York Times Best Sellers List.specs_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

forthekdis -- reading the links it looks like Barry was right to a degree. Murray certainly got some ideas from death metal music.tribune7_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

------kairosfocus @93 write, "As Lord Keynes said, unfortunately very prophetically, in his telling concluding passage in his famous General Theory, 'the madman distills his notions out of ideas available in his environment.'" Yes. It amazes me that more social commentators do not make this connection. Our youngest and most vulnerable have been steeped in an anti-Christian, anti-life philosophy almost from the age of reason. Sadly, most who educate them are either ignorant about or hostile toward the theological truths that shape freedom and prosperity. Christianity brought us the notion that we are all “created equal”; that we are precious in the eyes of God; that we have been given a vocation; that our race, creed, and gender don’t matter; that we were “designed” to work out our own personal destinies. Equally important, it teaches that we have the internal God-given power to work out that destiny. We know that life is sacred only because we know that the creator has placed value on it. In other words Christianity provides TEMPORAL HOPE as well as eternal consolation. You cannot get that same sense of confidence by abandoning Christianity and supplanting it with some ridiculous cult of “self esteem,” which bids students to mindlessly gather around a desk and parrot the phrase, “I am somebody.” If, as the anti-religious contingency insists, that Christianity is “poison,” then if follows that all of the ideas derived from Christianity are poison as well. So when secularist educators in our schools undermine Christianity, they are also destabilizing the very institution that was designed to prepare us for responsible citizenship---and for a meaningful life. Make no mistake about it, once Christendom is destroyed, its blessings go with it. But the leading secularists will not admit this obvious fact. Somehow they have deluded themselves, and many of their Darwinist/secularist followers, that liberty and prosperity can be generated solely from rationalist principles. Never mind the fact that nothing like it ever occurred before Christianity and nothing like it will ever occur again.. Incredibly, atheists have this vision of a well-ordered society without having the faintest notion about where that order comes from in the first place. That is why they always blow it when they get the power. Being power mad, they want to destroy Christianity, which is the antidote to tyrannical power----but they also want to retain Christianity’s fruits. In other words, they are parasites on the very thing that they hate and want to eliminate. Of course, as we all know, they would eliminate freedom and dignity as well if they get hegemonic control of the culture and no longer need to posture as lovers of liberty. As the record shows, they value power much more than they value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Too many of our children and young adults also de-value life, because, brainwashed in secularism, they do not understand the inherent dignity of the human person. Further, they have been cheated out of the theological perspective that provides temporal hope. To complicate things even more, they have been programmed to resent any reference to God, no matter what the context. Trained by their secularist educators to be dutiful secularist worker bees, they have come to regard Christian morality as an “imposition of values,” and Christian believers as intellectual crackpots---rigid ideologues who would inhibit them sexually and, if they could, impose on them a Biblically-oriented theocracy. How, then, can one expect our young to look forward to the future when they have no moral direction---no real opportunity to learn and practice the virtues that make life worth living---faith, fairness, courage, compassion, love, enthusiasm, self control, and a lively sense of purpose. Having had the hope of a meaningful life taken from them, having been warned that there are no “ready-made” answers at the very time they are looking for answers, many of them are ready to crack at the first sign of an emotional challenge. If the problem is serious enough, murder is just as much of an option as suicide. Consider the bottom line message from Hitchens, Dawkins, Wilson, and the secularist educators that enable them: “Hope is a lie, and the Christians who offer it are liars. Life is hard enough without allowing these cruel, ignorant, neurotic fundamentalists to set you up for a fall. You must learn to hate these fools and anyone else who would impose their personal morality on you. They don’t care about you at all; they just want to keep you from having a good time. Have sex as often as you like, when you like, and with whom you like. Then, wallow in your existential despair. It is all you have!” I can understand why someone struggling with emotional problems might break after hearing a message like that often enough. Unfortunately, even those educated from a Christian perspective are vulnerable to this philosophy, unless they make the connection between their faith and their role in the world. If we continue to allow our children to hear this destructive message without mounting a serious challenge to it, then we deserve even more of what we are already getting.StephenB_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Hmmm...interesting link. Extreme fundamentalist views can be dangerous and even deadly regardless as to whether they are based on 'religious' or 'atheist' views.Forthekids_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, "That means that those who comment in public or serve as educators — and that includes on the Internet, folks — have a duty to be tempered, objective, fair, accurate and balanced." I agree completely. Though I would go another step and include us pseudonym'd people posting in comments sections with it. I'm surprised no one has yet done a book (if they have, it hasn't reached my attention) about culture on the internet. Some anonymous person died? In come the jokes and the "Darwin awards" (And no, I don't think that's a result of evolution being taught - I think it's part of a valueless culture) and the people laughing. Someone famous has a stroke or the like? In with more jokes, especially if some people didn't like his/her music. And that's the lighter end of things. Promote the idea that members of a culture you disagree with are subhuman, beyond debate, have no value, and don't be shocked if people take you seriously and play the idea out to a nasty conclusion.nullasalus_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

specs,
Well, it seems I haven’t been shown the door yet, so let me respond.
eh? Merely disagreeing with someone won't get you the boot. Intellectual dishonestly would, but you are not being intellectually dishonest and I see your point. Although I would add that rebellion can occur even in an overall positive environment. My wife's youngest brother would be an example. Besides his inner rebellion, the largest external factor was the internet and other negative media (he even admits that his views were largely influenced by these external sources). Despite his family and friend's positive influence he decided to rebel, and even became a leader of sorts for a gang, thus becoming a negative influence to others. One of the persons he influenced is now in a coma. But in regards to Murray we cannot be certain what the largest factors were. It's possible his family and friends may have failed him, or even abused him. It's also possible that Murray was a regular reader of PT and TO, which regularly includes incitements to hatred!* We don't know, but I think Barry is trying to focus on "overall questions" related to the intellectual environment. Your questions are perfectly valid but they're a separate question for which we don't have enough information. * I'd post examples but we're trying to keep UD family friendly. Let's just say that people who are respected over there like Abbie Smith have wished death on public figures in "interesting" fashions...Patrick_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Fair call, nullasalus. I'm sure my contemporaries in this thread have also been contemplating the real message that was firstly written and commented on down the line. For all the verbal jousting that ensued, the real focus of the question has certainly been food for thought. Dawkins and co. certainly do stir the pot, and animosity grows towards believers ... or even non-believers who have the temerity to question the evolutionary paradigm. The more someone is called a name the harder it is to lose it. This is an effective weapon emplyed by the Dawkinsians.AussieID_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Nullasalus: Thanks for the reminder. In the post at 93, I tried to pull us back on focus by putting a broader perspective on the main side-issue, and by the time I put up a follow-up on the further atmosphere-poisoning I observed on web commentary, it was 98. That occasioned a yet further case in point using Village Atheist style theological tickler rhetoric [now unfortunately all too frequently exemplified by the leading atheist advocates we have been mentioning]. I responded, and by then it was 103. If I can without seeming utterly full of myself, restate my bottom-line from 93, here it is: _______________ As Lord Keynes said, unfortunately very prophetically, in his telling concluding passage in his famous General Theory, the madman distills his notions out of ideas available in his environment. Indeed, a long time ago now, the late, great Gene Denham taught Christian student leaders in Jamaica about how easily one find oneself in a situation in which one’s belief- and value- system appears to be ineffective and useless, leading to collapse. In such a painful situation, quite often victims will find some other ready-made system to cling to desperately, whether or not this new system is really sound — making for radical “conversions” and a sometimes dangerously unbalanced zeal that can easily be exploited by unscrupulous leaders. I have seen many such young people caught up in subcultures and movements that are destructive. (BTW, this psychological process has a lot to do with the current suicide bomber cult in the Middle East. It can also easily account for so-called lone-wolf terrorists; especially in an Internet age.) This, sadly, seems to have happened in this case. That means that those who comment in public or serve as educators — and that includes on the Internet, folks — have a duty to be tempered, objective, fair, accurate and balanced. Otherwise, we help to sow the little winds of hate and feed the tornadoes of murderous violence that stem from that hate. It is as simple as that, and as painfully and personally telling as that. It’s not just Dennett or Pullman or Dawkins, it is us. ___________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

It's a shame the comments have been drawn so far off track. Guns, arguments for/against God, etc. Just as well, this always happens on the internet. But I hope the people reading this thread, atheist and theist alike, really considers what BarryA was pointing out. Questions of culture and climate are valid, and there may well be cause to worry about just what sort of ideas - or memes, if that's your flavor of choice - are being circulated in the modern religious debate. People who are quick to remember past bad influences of christian culture sometimes forget that atheist and anti-theist culture has prompted violence and similar before as well. (Guillotines, anyone?)nullasalus_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Re George, 99: See what I mean? Let's take up a few points: 1] God doesn’t seem to hesitate much throughout the Old Testament to intervene even for violations of the law that modern Western culture would consider insignificant. This of course would take the thread even furtrher afield, into theology [well off-topic for this blog, but an increasingly common resort in the "pose a theological conundrum to show these fundies are dummies and threats to our liberties" Village Atheist tactics of today's atheist rhetors]. But, pardon me Patrick et al, as a point or two need to be made once such a claim has been put on the table. Okay, first, you will see in the OT a code of civil law for a people at a very different stage of human culture than we are today, and an associated account of their history across about 1,000 years. Given the circumstances they faced, the laws and many actions that look harsh or worse to our eyes were very much matters of survival as a community or even as a people. And, if our Civilisation were -- e.g through a nuke war or the onset of an ice age -- to collapse into a dark age similar to that of the ANE and Mediterranean world circa 1200 BC - 800 or so BC, a very similar situation would ensue among our survivors. [Cf a discussion of some of this here.] 2] God did not so love free will as to refuse to punish evil in the material world long ago- why does he stay out of it now? One can only PUNISH in a context of responsibility. In short, the very existence of law codes and sanctions on the guilty is premised on the sort of freedom of mind and action that leads to personal responsibility. This point self-destructs. Also, this remark targets the Judaeo-Christian worldview. So, it is relevant to note that, say, Rom 13:1 - 7 explicitly teaches that the civil authority is God's agent of justice explicitly tasked, inter alia, to punish evildoers. So, just rulers will serve as God's agents of judgement on evildoers. Unjust ones will trigger a process of resistance that restrains their evil. All, built into the fabric of a world in which we have morally responsible creatures who sense intuitively that certain things are just or unjust and are stirred deeply by them; namely ourselves. [BTW, cf the discussion here -- as already linked -- for details as worked out in the reformation era and as contributed materially to the rise of modern self-government by free peoples. This is not just theory, it is history.] Further to this, in a world in which cause-effect chains exist, immoral or irresponsible acts have destructive consequences that are built-in, and which therefore serve to self-limit the damage such acts cause to the society as a whole -- they tend to check themselves before they get too far out of hand, ultimately by triggering defensive wars that stop the madness form circulating globally. [On the Biblical worldview, cf her Ac 17:24 ff, that is part of why God created distinct nations, to serve as checks and balances on evil.] So, God is not so invisible or inactive as George may presume based on his secularist education. 3] The ability of purely physical events to cause drastic changes in memory and personality tells otherwise; if there is a non-physical component to the mind, it doesn’t seem to be one integral to composing what we consider important in ourselves. This point also self-destructs. First, I have nowhere said that the condition of the brain is UNRELATED to or cannot influence the condition of the mind, only that: we are not just zombies programmed by our genes and environments with mind as a delusion floating on the materialistic “reality” of neural networks in our brains and associated CNSes. If we were such zombies, then we could not even have a reasonable conversation and the attempt to persuade by argument George just presented would be pointless! It would be a matter of what neuronal firing potentials and patterns just happened to be there as controlled by environment and genes, that's all. (indeed,t he point of such conversations would be to excite verbal behaviour that rriggers certain emotions thart release certain hormones and leads to certain fixed responses stamped in by evolution and accidents of socio-cultural conditioning. That easily explains the common resort to atmosphere-poisoning rather than rational discourse, but it does not explain why we find ourselves knowing intuitively that reason matters, mind matters and morality is binding. Just watch a secularist pounce on a flaw in reasoning gleefully, or protest at injustice -- including perceived injustice by the God of the Bible. Then, ask, on what GROUNDS relative to his evolutionary materialist premises, does such a person hold those views and act in that way?] The second part of the claim is a bare, question-begging assertion in the teeth of the most obvious, directly accessible evidence of all: our conscious, thinking minds, and the associated experience of freedom to think and decide for ourselves. Neuronal networks are in effect products of chance + necessity,and there is no truth value or moral value to a neuronal firing potential. In short, George's very assumption that he is in fact an agent communicating with other agents undercuts his assertion decisively. 4] The very fact that we can have subjective experiences and ascribe value to these experiences is evidence against the case that these experiences are formed solely by our physical brains? Precisely, for our behaviour betrays that these things are real, and not just subjective delusions -- as even the attempt to argue to evolutionary materialism as an account of mind inadvertently reveals. Had you taken time to follow up the links and examined the discussion, you would have found this start-point for discussion:
materialism . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community [= "might makes 'right' "], for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead . . . . It is consequently no surprise to detect the consistent theme that all of reality is ultimately meaningless . . . . In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real world.
That is my point, and my reason for it in a nutshell. And, it is therefore not irrelevant to ask: on what grounded and coherent basis do evolutionary materialists object to what Mr Murray has done -- beyond self-refruting subjectivist or relativistic rationales that boil down to I don't like it, or some referent community does not like it? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

KF-- this might be of interest: Of the five bloodiest wars in history, three did not involve guns at all. The fifth - Taiping Rebellion -- was also mostly fought with edged instruments as I understand it. And I have to go to bed. Goodnight Aussie. Goodnight KF.tribune7_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

… here, have a gun. They’re everywhere!!!! Exactly! And some places are fine with them, and some places are not. The problem is not the gun. AND THAT IS THE POINT. In fact, if you diagnose the problem as the gun, and try to solve it by removing the gun you will certainly make the problem worse. Which is another BIG point. No gun, no gun crime! Putting ink on paper in the form of a law does not make the gun disappear. Further, you seem to think that guns are bad. As noted several posts back, before guns came along there was more murder/mayhem/abuse. A gun will make a big person not abuse the little person as he had planned.tribune7_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Aussie-ID: In re:
No gun, no gun crime!
I think my native land, Jamaica, is sadly living proof of a point often made by Louis L'Amour that late, great popular novelist of the American West:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns . . .
Even worse, it is sad evidence that if there are enough angry people in a society, knives and agricultural implements such as machetes alone can be enough. Jamica's non-gun murder rate, ever so sadly -- and it shames and saddens me to have to even mention it [but, we need to learn from it] -- far exceeds the total murder rate in a lot of countries across the world. The 1994 tragedy in Rwanda underscores this, too. Was it 800,000 people basically hacked and clubbed to death then dumped in the river? In short, a society that is disarmed can be just as vulnerable [or just as immune!] to violent crime with and without guns as one that is armed to the teeth. Think of 1950s England [more or less disarmed and exceptionally non-violent though populated by millions of vets of the bloodiest two wars in history to date] and Switzerland . . . where not only do we have a fully ready automatic rifle in the typical "uniform closet" in the typical house but also private individuals are encouraged to buy retired artillery pieces!] Guns, machetes, knives, clubs and rocks for that matter are simply tools used by violent people to carry out their wishes. Further, so long as there is a drugs traffic that passes through a country, there will be a heavily armed criminal underclass, and someone who is sufficiently motivated will be able to access it. That includes assault rifles and sub machine guns for those so inclined. (Look at how widespread the AK 47 is across much of the world as a legacy of the Cold War, and you will see the point beyond dispute.) So, let's pause and take a breather on this side-bar, and get back on focus on a serious and culture-wide issue. The real issues in this thread are serious enough. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

PS: I see that some of the anti-Christian, ideologically motivated commentary out there on this case improperly appeals to the problem of evil, and tries to dismiss the point of human responsibility as moral creatures, in its rush to find an excuse to blame God [and believers in God] for tragedies,
Yet God doesn't seem to hesitate much throughout the Old Testament to intervene even for violations of the law that modern Western culture would consider insignificant. God did not so love free will as to refuse to punish evil in the material world long ago- why does he stay out of it now?
we are not just zombies programmed by our genes and environments with mind as a delusion floating on the materialistic “reality” of neural networks in our brains and associated CNSes.
The ability of purely physical events to cause drastic changes in memory and personality tells otherwise; if there is a non-physical component to the mind, it doesn't seem to be one integral to composing what we consider important in ourselves.
So, the very fact that they obviously think they can think about the issue and think that argument is important, tells against their own case against God and those who believe in him.
The very fact that we can have subjective experiences and ascribe value to these experiences is evidence against the case that these experiences are formed solely by our physical brains?George DW_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

PPS: I see that some of the anti-Christian, ideologically motivated commentary out there on this case improperly appeals to the problem of evil, and tries to dismiss the point of human responsibility as moral creatures, in its rush to find an excuse to blame God [and believers in God] for tragedies, and to "justify" atheism, secularism and the associated secularist, statist progressivism that dominates so much of the West's political culture. Ironically, these philosophically under- or mis- educated commenters don't seem to realise that the very same freedom that gives us a capacity to love or hate also gives us the capacity to have minds of our own -- we are not just zombies programmed by our genes and environments with mind as a delusion floating on the materialistic "reality" of neural networks in our brains and associated CNSes. So, the very fact that they obviously think they can think about the issue and think that argument is important, tells against their own case against God and those who believe in him. Indeed, as I have argued long since and as was discussed at length in the Aug 20 Charles Darwin Thread [cf. from 48 on], the evolutionary materialist worldview that seems to motivate this sort of commentary, is -- precisely because it is dynamically impotent to account for trustworthy minds that can often credibly think in rationally and morally sound ways -- blatantly self-contradictory and thus self-refuting.kairosfocus_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

tribune7: " A lot of those families — maybe even most — wouldn’t care all that much. The fathers are long gone. The mothers have taken up with other boyfriends. There is usually lots of drugs involved." I worked with families like that for nearly ten years. Hardest case scenarios. I dispute that point entirely. Loss of family, no matter how estranged and broken families can be, is still loss. And through a violent end, there is even a greater sense of grief. "There are plenty of places in America with a whole lot of guns and very few murders. Guns are not the problem. They are just things made of metal and wood. They just sit there unless a person comes along." AND THAT IS MY POINT: A person comes along! Anyone with a beef can take the metal and wood instrument and use it. You mention drugs, I'll add loss of focus, depravity, dependancy, suicidal tendencies ... here, have a gun. They're everywhere!!!! No gun, no gun crime!AussieID_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply