Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do Dawkins and Dennett Incite to Hatred?

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
specs, you like to make moral equivalence arguments.
No Barry, I am not trying to draw moral equivalences. It is pretty clear that you are not picking up on what I am trying to say. While I suspect that doing so will make this my last comment here, let me make my point less subtlely because I think it is an important point. A month ago, a troubled Finnish youth calling himself a "anti-social Social Darwinist" goes on a killing spree and the response here is to point blame at Darwinists / materialists / atheists. Now, several days ago, a troubled youth in Colorado (one who's life was characterized by devout religious upbringing and education) goes on a killing spree and your response is to ask whether the Darwinists / materialists / atheists are to blame. My point is that, no matter what the circumstances, your answer is always the same. One of the other posters here said earlier in this thread that atheism is dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Well, all I can say is "Doctor, heal thyself." You are so sure that atheism is to blame that you are completely unwilling to ask if the religious community could do more to help people with mental illnesses. (Nota bene: That isn't solely a condemnation of the religious community. Society at large doesn't deal with mental illness well.) I saw my loved one try to pray their way out of depression because that is what religious leaders said they should do. But, they weren't there with me to pick up the pieces when that didn't work. I was the one who had to deal with the raw, unadulterated grief and suicidal thoughts. I was the one to force them to go to the counselor and to the pyschiatrist and to the pharmacist. I am thankful that there are Christians that understand mental illness is as much a physical as spiritual disease. You, Barry, are not one of them. You look at everything through your lense of the culture war. No tragedy exists that can't be exploited to that end. Any circumstances that are inconvenient to your narrative are just swept under the carpet because, by golly, their are atheists to fight. So, go ahead and continue to fight your culture war. There is, after all, no glory in the private struggles with mental illness. As for me? I'll forgo all that glory just to see my loved one smile again. It would be good for influential people like yourself to humbly address the issue of mental illness. But, I am not counting on it. There are bigger fish to fry, aren't there?specs
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
You make several very good points nullasalus.BarryA
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
I find it strangely entertaining that the favored response of choice among some here is 'Well, if you're going to ask that, I'm going to ask a question you may not like!' Maybe the 'very religious' upbringing the shooter supposedly had contributed to the shooting? Maybe the Christian community he was dealing with didn't handle him well? All that, and counter-questions: What if he was a big ID proponent? What if he was a Christian? Would it be fair to ask questions like this then? And I have to say, my own response is: Sure, let's discuss all this, including the question in the OP. I think the discussion can only be productive, and I don't see any reason to be intimidated by questions. If they're ill-intended and pointless or divisive, they'll be recognized as such, no matter the source. I can relate to Stuart Harris' comments in a way - I see no need to make baseless allegations against particular atheists, or stereotype all atheists. But I honestly don't see that happening here. Asking what kind of culture is being promoted by a particular prominent wing of atheists is a question worth probing. I find it no more distasteful to say 'What (given atheist) is saying here, the attitude and culture and mindset they promote, is wrong' than to say that same thing about Westboro Baptist's leadership, or any other group, Christian or not, if warranted. Certainly, in this thread, we see plenty of criticism of theist culture. And for the record, from First Things and EWTN to FAIR LDS, I see constantly questioning, suggestion, and criticism of theist communities by their own adherents online. The idea that this doesn't happen - and that christians all condemn those evil 'materialist' doctors and their fancy medicine - is a joke. And the idea that it's wrong to, in the face of tragedy, wonder what effect an associated culture had or didn't have.. I can only say I think such a view is wrong-headed, to say the least.nullasalus
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
specs, you like to make moral equivalence arguments. Such arguments are particularly unimpressive to me. I remember the 70's and 80's when we heard all the time "the Soviets are just people like us; who are we to get on our moral high horse?" Blithering nonsense. We did not kill millions of our own citizens. We did not have a gulag, etc. etc. The question in this post is whether it is irresponsible for atheists to foment hatred, antagonism or intolerance of religious people. The answer to that question is most decidedly not, "well Christians can be bad people too."BarryA
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Specs, A few things, 1st I wanted to say sorry that your loved one had to go through such an ordeal. I have been to many Christian Churches, and my brother has similar symptoms, they did first suggest looking to God for an answer, but by all means they supported if you feel that medication is the best direction then go for it, and no harsh feelings, but it never hurts to pray! I like to think of the popular story where the guy sits around hoping God will help him get somewhere, they send 3 busses to pick him up and he says "No thanks God will come and get me" when he dies he asks God "Why didn't you come get me?" God replies "You dummy I sent 3 vehicals out to get you." There was 1 thing you said that did bother me especially because I a a special education major and have read quite a bit on the subject. You said "It is my observation that, as a whole, the Christian community does not deal with mental illness well." It is funny that you say that because Reading about the history if individuals with disabilities, that statement is nearly the opposite of what happend. It was actually Christians who were the first to realize that these people had souls and should be treated with care and respect. There was even a famous quote that I cant remember who but they said "Would you lead a blind man into a wall". They have done alot to help the public to realize these are good people who need our help. If you don't believe me check out the book "Learners with Mild Disabilities: A Characteristics Approach" second edition. On page 29 begins to talk about it. Also, the book even talks about eugenics. Funny how Christians wanted to treat people, and then a long time after these darwin supporters were pushing Eugenics. I just think it is unfair to say that Christians don't know to treat these people.gore
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Specs -- First, there is little evidence that the the “media” and “culture” are what drove Matthew Murray’s actions. Wait a minute. You have widespread preaching of hatred of Christianity. You have it given sympathetic treatment by major media -- a $180 million movie was just released based on a book written by a man who said his goal is to kill God, for instance -- and you think it is unfair to go hmmmm? what do you propose? Anti-blasphemy laws? How about confronting it in the arena of ideas? The first step, of course, would to be ask the question whether this activity does incite hatred. But even then some will feel obliged to get on their high horse and object, right?tribune7
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
AussieID Are any of the statistics surrounding gun control in Australia wrong in any significant measure? http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/comm8.html If not then it appears so-called gun control did nothing for Australia except to increase all classes of violent and property crimes. Your comment strongly implies that Australia had a higher homicide rate before gun control measures were implimented but that doesn't appear to be the case. Australia's homicide rate was low to begin with and increased significantly (but it's still low) after Draconian gun control laws were passed in the mid-1990's. America's gun situation is different. While Australia has 7 million guns in circulation the US has hundreds of millions of them and the right to private ownership is constitutionally protected. We already have strict laws that prohibit using guns in the commission of crimes. It should be obvious that criminals don't obey the law. Criminalizing guns will not prevent criminals from owning them and with hundreds of millions in circulation and a constitutional protection on ownership no confiscation program would ever be tolerated. We can't even get everyone to agree that it's okay to search a suspected terrorist's home or eavesdrop on communications without a search warrant to say nothing of invading the homes of otherwise law-abiding citizens to see if they gave up their guns. Draconian gun laws, speculatively in my country and evidently in yours, do nothing to save lives and only serve to embolden criminals who know that there is less likelyhood that potential victims would offer armed resistance. Gun control advocates seldom if ever consider the number of crimes prevented due to the spectre of being shot dead by their potential victims. We here in Texas passed a law allowing anyone to easily obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon around the same time Australia passed its Draconian gun controls. None of the results feared by gun control advocates came to pass in Texas. There was no increase whatsoever in handgun related crime.DaveScot
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
but don’t you think media messages and cultural environment might influence a person suffering from emotional instability to do acts of great wrong (or take action that would benefit themselves and others) , and can’t you see that Barry (and others) have an obligation to point this out?
Two comments. First, there is little evidence that the the "media" and "culture" are what drove Matthew Murray's actions. Since Barry and Denyse previously suggested we should look to the writings of the "anti-social Social Darwinist" that perpetrated the shooting last month in Finland for his motivation, why shouldn't we do the same here? Should we ignore that he wrote of his feelings of rejection by the community of believers just because we don't like where the evidence leads? Just as it is easier to blame the atheists rather than look in the mirror of our own guilt, so is it a cop-out to blame the media or the culture. Second, even if the media or culture did bear some culpability (an idea that, prima facie, I reject), what do you propose? Anti-blasphemy laws? Extending hate speech laws to cover religion and the religious? Hate speech laws have rightfully been challenged by the conservative community. How ironic that the same community would potentially employee the same hammer when it's ox is being gored. No, the solution lies within the Christian community accepting that it may have failed one of it's own. It comes from accepting that maybe those horrid materialist scientists may have something to contribute to the treatment of mental illness.. It comes from putting aside the cudgel of the cultural warrior and looking for ways to strengthen the faith (and mental health) off the lost souls within your own community.specs
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Specs -- It is my observation that, as a whole, the Christian community does not deal with mental illness well. Specs this is a fair point and I'm inclined to agree, but don't you think media messages and cultural environment might influence a person suffering from emotional instability to do acts of great wrong (or take action that would benefit themselves and others) , and can't you see that Barry (and others) have an obligation to point this out?tribune7
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Stuart -- If the killer Murray were found to be a Christian ID supporter (and who knows, he or the next one might be), and the Darwinists insinuated that it was the fault of Johnson and Dembski with no direct compelling evidence, would we rightly object? Stuart, you make a good point, but I'd like to make one in return: No Christian ID supporter has been involved with committing a massacre. Atheists/vehement anti-Christians, meanwhile, seem to make them rather frequently. Auvinen, Harris, Klebold, and, yes, Timothy McVeigh, were atheists. In fact, Auvinen and Harris proudly proclaimed their belief in Darwinism. It is not wrong or impolite to point out this correlation. Actually, it would be wrong not to.tribune7
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
What *started* the massacre in this case was a privately held assault rifle and handguns. . . .Wouldn’t it be better to have taken those out of the equation? Once upon a time they were. Were things more or less violent before the 14th century? Were there more or fewer massacres? Have societies that prohibited private ownership of firearms a greater or less level of fear and tension? You say a gun ban has worked in Australia and that's fine but here the places with the strictest gun laws have generally been the most dangerous -- and the danger has generally increased with the restrictions. And America is really not all that dangerous a place to live. And the dangerous places have much less to do with access to firearms than bad cultural messages -- as Barry implies, albeit not just evangelical atheism although always anti-Christian. If we were to return Bible readings and prayer to our public schools -- as they were for most of our history -- I'm convinced violence would drop exponentially more than with any action with regard to guns. But for some reason certain influential powers here don't want to consider that solution but advocate restrictions on individual freedom and the ability to defend oneself. And I don't know if you've ever picked up on this but the same crowd here thad advocates gun bans leaves loopholes for they (or their security people) to have access to guns.tribune7
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
StuartHarris, It is important to point out where people are wrong. That is the essence of my posts at 31 and 52. I agree you don’t lower yourself to their level but to talk about evil as if it is the same as good is to fall victim to the Devil's greatest trick- convincing man that he does not exist. This sight is for entertainment purposes, it is a place where ID advocates can speak to one another with out government disruption, it is a place for ideas to be heard and all things related to ID to be discussed. The writer for this site are ID advocates so of course their minds are already made up. Its not a pat on the back to call it like you see it. And I remind you that in a hostile climate one must defend itself- for ever little jab we take at DE their is a bomb going off on ID. To convince people in this world of anything you have to stand up for what you believe in, win, loose or draw. No one at this site hates Darwinian Evolutionists- but we do feel that they have hijacked our courts and institutions and in this county change requires action. Not hate, not war but action through words- Sticks and stones - stuart.Frost122585
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
because Dembski and Johnson have not fomented hatred or intolerance against atheists.
Barry, this very site is a running polemic against atheists. The About Us page blames them for "subverting" and "corrupting" the study of origins and using science "illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview." Allusions (and sometimes even direct comparisons) to Nazi's, Lenin, and Stalin abound. That is hardly a big ole friendly bear hug for atheists, now is it? Is the language around here as directly confrontational as that of Hitchens and Dawkins? Well, no. But I always get the impression that such argumentation lies just below the surface. Rather than having the conviction to come out and say what y'all really think, it is couched in the plausible deniability of "interesting questions." Am I right about that? Maybe not, but it is an interesting question. An article in today's Denver Post paints a picture of a youth probably suffering from schizophrenia and reports that he wrote of his feelings of rejection as a motive in his twisted actions. As I have stated above, this boy grew up in a religious family, was homeschooled in that tradition, and attended the YWAM missionary training program. His life was steeped in religion. To suggest that the purple prose of two atheist wags is responsible is not an interesting question. It is an irresponsible question. There is a person very precious to me who has struggled all their life with clinical depression. Some 5 or 6 years ago, this person was born again and the ensuing years marked their deepest struggle with the depression. It is my observation that, as a whole, the Christian community does not deal with mental illness well. This person was told that their problems were because they were not trusting, and letting go to, God. They could pray their way to health. It was the absolute worst advice possible. Many mental illnesses, like depression and schizophrenia, have a strong component of brain chemistry. It wasn't until I urged this person to talk to a very specific Christian counselor, who then referred them to a very specific Christian psychiatrist that they were able to stabilize the depression with medication. Their faith in God survived the ordeal of the last few years. Their faith in the religious community, however, did not. There are some things you can't pray your way out of. So, there it is. Now, Barry, you know why I challenge you (and Denyse) so hard on your exploitation of the shootings in Finland and Colorado. By taking the easy route of asking "interesting questions" about the environment created by the statements of irrascible atheists, you are avoiding the difficult questions about whether your community is doing all it can to minister to it's troubled members.specs
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Thanks Kairos, I meant Pullman but I suppose Dawkins has said similar things as well because people like him do not root their intellectualism in a search for truth but instead its enemy, demagoguery. The point on Gandhi was that as a human being he was caught up in a great political war- one that spilled much blood and that even though he viewed himself as right he was not able to accomplish what Christ did- for Christ was not about stopping man from war- he did not stand in their way in a desperate act of protest- he allowed them to destroy him in front of everyone for no reason at all except “to show the world the lunacy of its hate“- Christ’s death was brilliant, pointed and inspiring while Gandhi’s was tragic The brilliant mind of George Orwell put all of this into the greatest perspective when he said
"A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him."
Christ's death was not tragic because it resulted in all things becoming new and brought hope to man kind. Gandhi’s death was tragic because it was a political death one of this earth- he was destroyed by forces less noble than the message he carried. Christ really didn't die- and therefore was not destroyed but brought to life- Gandhi will be forgotten about except for in intellectual circles while Jesus has been the protagonist in the highest selling book of all time. The underling meaning of my post at 31 is that Jesus lived through the evil of the world while Gandhi validated man hopelessness. In this sense it is the utter blatancy that the Christian haters display that helps to validate Christ’s word not in their destruction but in our ability to see them for what they are- Nazi Germany was the same- it was their blatant evil that lead to their destruction- or as Hegel once said in his encyclopedia -
“In politics, it is well known how prone the extremes are… we find the consciousness of dialectic in these universally familiar proverbs; pride goes before the fall; too much wit outwits itself.”
It is the divinity of Christ’s peace that made itself known through the evil of human action- It is the blatancy of these demagogues that makes their defeat easy- if they were more clever and insidious they would try to sell their hatred with small steps and false friendliness, but they have not read their Art of War- Finally, I would like to quote Robert Browning (one of the greatest minds of all time) who understood man's absolute need for correction enlightenment, insight, and virtue-
"That's all we can expect of man, this side of the grave; his good is knowing he is bad."
We should feel blessed that Dawkins and his side are so easily distinguishable from the truth.Frost122585
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
So here's what we know: Matthew Murray was raised in "a deeply religious family" and was home-schooled. He had a history of mental instability to the point that he was rejected as a missionary by Youth With a Mission, where the shootings began. Here's what we don't know: that Murray had even ever heard of Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens. Murray's rants are readily available on the web, so have a look for yourselves. Indeed, "thinking people ask questions". Perhaps the question to ask here is 'does a repressive hyper-religious upbringing increase the chances of destructive behavior?' Just asking!greyman
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
I suspect the climate that Dawkins et al. are attempting to create is similar to that created by Hitler: blame the Jews (Christians, and other religions) for all the world's problems. I'm not suggesting that Dawkins et al. would put us all in gas chambers at their first chance -- well actually, from their rhetoric and their desired utopia, why would I not suspect that that??? If these atheists create a cultural climate where Christianity is to blame for everything, what would we expect to happen when something goes wrong, and some young person lashes out against the apparent enemy. Quite honestly, I relish the chance to debate atheists, and encourage them to challenge my beliefs, but these new atheists are over the top into hate-speech land. Perhaps the best way to shut them up is to beat the figurative snot out of them in every debate and show how wrong they are.Robo
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Barry, I'm in my early fifties and spent the first four decades of my life as an atheist. Here at UD, we talk amongst ourselves an awful lot. Bill throws a jab at some anti-ID article he’s read, and Denyse a hook at some atheist speaker she heard – and then repeat it all the next day. If that's the feel-good purpose of this site, well, I guess that's OK. Perhaps it serves to strengthen one's own convictions and erase personal doubts. But if we want to advance the debate and really change people's minds, I can tell you from personal experience that directing shots at particular atheists just isn't going to do it. It’s navel gazing. We may score some pats on the back from those already on our side, but we'll do nothing for those who aren't. In fact we'll harden them, make them all the more intransigent and make ourselves look worse to the third group: the audience that wants to listen to the debate and is willing to be convinced by positive arguments. I’ve noticed a degradation of the ID movement in the past few years. The Discovery Institute and many of the blogs have taken on such a reactive and defensive tone. There’s no need for this. I hope it can return to the more proactive mode of discovery it had in the ‘90’s and early 2000’s.StuartHarris
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Stuart Harris writes: "If the killer Murray were found to be a Christian ID supporter (and who knows, he or the next one might be), and the Darwinists insinuated that it was the fault of Johnson and Dembski with no direct compelling evidence, would we rightly object?" Stuart, you are missing the point. To your example, they would be wrong and we would have every right to object, because Dembski and Johnson have not fomented hatred or intolerance against atheists. You misunderstand. I am not making debating points. My post is not directed at "atheism." It is directed at particular atheists for their contribution to the climate of hatred and antagonism against people of faith. I am not debating the merits of atheism vs. theism, so the D'Sousa/Dawkins debate example is not germane. If I am not debating what am I doing? I am making a moral observation. When men like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens spew hate and intolerance someone must stand up and call them on it, and that is my purpose in this post. I'm using this soapbox to tell the world that it is evil to say people you disagree with should be put in cages. It is evil to say that people who have a different point of view are insane, stupid or wicked. It is evil to say that religious people, the vast majority of whom are doing the best they can to be good neighbors and citizens, are a poison to our society. We have an obligation to stand up and point at people who have done evil things and say, "What you have done is evil; you should be ashamed." Mr. Stuart, if you disagree it must be for one of two reasons: (1) you don't think these things are evil; or (2) when people do evil things they should not be called on it and shamed. In either event you are wrong.BarryA
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
I just find it weird that people even think religious people are so terrible. Have you ever tried to invite a "bible thumper" to get drunk? Aren't they known as the party poopers because they have this strict code of ethics. BEcause on weekends they would rather go to saturday night church than cause trouble? These church sessions are terrible, they sing songs, tell stories. What hooligans! When I think of "religious" people, I think of a church full of sweet old ladies. To think these people are bad terrible people. Ooh man, I am laughing because I just immagined an old lady after church going out in her church cloths and doing a drive by. Come on people hahagore
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
PS: Here is an excerpt, from Bernard Lewis in his famous Sept 1990 Atlantic Monthly piece on the roots of Muslim rage, on the commonplace resentment against the West, especially in that period when it was known as Christendom:
. . . revulsion against America, more generally against the West, is by no means limited to the Muslim world . . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst . . . . Slavery is today universally denounced as an offense against humanity, but within living memory it has been practiced and even defended as a necessary institution, established and regulated by divine law [A subtle allusion to the fact that slavery was officially abolished in the Islamic theocracy of Saudi Arabia only in 1962]. The peculiarity of the peculiar institution, as Americans once called it, lay not in its existence but in its abolition. Westerners were the first to break the consensus of acceptance and to outlaw slavery, first at home, then in the other territories they controlled, and finally wherever in the world they were able to exercise power or influence -- in a word, by means of imperialism . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. [Ironically, Mr Lewis here omits the major role played by Gospel ethics motivated Christians in the relevant reformation movements.]
In short, there are two sides to every story, and it is important that we seek that state of balance that is the true opposite to all extremes. OUCH, again.kairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
All: Generally excellent discussion. It is very clear that we need to heed the underlying point made by Aristotle 2300+ years ago, in Bk 1 Ch 2 of his classic manual on the art of persuasion The Rhetoric:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .
There it is, in so many words:
Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . .
In short, words can drive us mad with rage and even hate. Or, as an even wiser man observed some 700 years before Aristotle spoke:
PR 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death,and those who love it will eat its fruit.
Therefore, we need to pause, rethink a lot of things that go on without question or are even celebrated in our civilisation. But, are Mr Dawkins, Mr Dennett, Mr Hitchens, Mr Pullman, Mr Hines, Times-Warner's New Line Cinema et al even listening? And, if they are not, what can and should we -- as a culture -- do about the poison they insistently circulate? Now also, pausing on a point or two: 1] Frost, 31: What is it about the west and Christianity that dwells up so much hatred? Good question. I could answer by pointing out that one man's call to reformation is another man's rebuke and call to resentful opposition. And Jesus, in saying that we should not think he came to bring peace but a sword, said as much he knew that what he said and did would stir up hate and lashing out. Speaking truth to power has consequences -- it can be very dangerous to your health indeed. Especially, if you expose the hypocrisies and injustices of those whose power base depends on their being perceived as being good, decent, upright, brilliant, just and wise. So, a careful reading of the Gospels is an exercise in seeing how a call to reformation led to rising opposition then hate and scheming, then a Kangaroo court, and finally judicial murder -- in this case, duly done by those operating under the colours of a religious governing authority. Indeed, one way to read the Gospels is as in part a protest -- not against Jews as a people [3 of 4 were written by Jews, and Jesus' core followers were all Jews! Notice too the subtext of the clashes between the Galilean [commercially-based "Red" state] and the educated and sophisticated Judaean city-based elites ["Blue" state]] -- a rebuke to corrupt power and its underlying ideological justification and rhetoric. In short, we are looking here at a very HUMAN problem: sin, and what happens when sinners hold unaccountable power. (NB: When Lord Acton wrote that "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely; Great men are bad men" he was writing of the Renaissance era popes, heading the institution that was supposedly based on the Gospel ethics of Jesus. What a sad and telling irony! And, of course, the past 100 or so years have shown beyond rational denial, that secularist regimes have in turn been even more bloody than the Christian or pagan predecessors. Sin is the constant; all that has changed is that technical progress gives us ever greater power to be destructive . . .) And THAT, BTW, is why it is so important to look unflinchingly at this and other related problems as we have in recent days. 2] To claim as Dawkins does that the essence of Christianity is to hate people unlike yourself is to misrepresent its point. Dawkins confuses the battles of men with the message of the bible . . . Even Gandhi demonstrated against the evils of war- even though his political intervention lead to millions of deaths. First: Pullman, not Dawkins. The point on Gandhi underscores the above. For, here, a Hindu reformer -- who BTW drew stinging and telling contrasts between the formal Biblical religiosity of the British imperialist rulers of India and their behaviour -- in turn was assassinated by a fanatic of his own religion, and found himself caught up in a swirl of massive violence as India moved to independence and partition along religious lines. Today, the hate revealed in that hostility reveals itself in the nuclear armed cold war between India and Pakistan. Oh, how our hearts and deeds should shame us all and lead us to penitence and reformation! But, the very call to repentance and reformation is itself an occasion to resentful hostility and even violence. Even, among the circle of would-be reformers. Solzhenitsyn said it well when he pointed out that the line between good and evil does not pass between men and nations, but right through the individual human heart. So, let us each and all first contemplate the plank in our own eyes first,t hen see how its removal helps us as we set out on helping our brothers and sisters with the sawdust in their eyes . . . . BTW, this parable of Jesus is itself pregnant with social critique: it is the man on top of the saw-pit who was most likely to be annoyed over the natural enough reactions of the one down in the pit under the log trying to dodge the sawdust thrown out by the very act of sawing. No prizes for guessing which job usually went tot he junior man. We fault-finders and would-be fault menders should remember that we, too are just as flawed. OUCH! (Not: "Amen.") GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Patrick and Barry, Thanks for your comments (#26, and the Addition at the top) on my previous angry post (#17). Your points are taken. I'll change my chastisement of Barry from "shut the hell up" to a more polite "counselor, please put a sock in it because you’re hurting the debate against atheism". Look, the point of my post is that if we IDists are putting Darwin on trial, then some personal insinuations are simply out of bounds unless very strong evidence exists to support them. In this case the Darwinian camp would be perfectly right to say, "Your honor, I object to this line of questioning. It is inflammatory!" I objected for them. I think a fair judge would say “objection sustained” to Barry’s line of questioning. If the killer Murray were found to be a Christian ID supporter (and who knows, he or the next one might be), and the Darwinists insinuated that it was the fault of Johnson and Dembski with no direct compelling evidence, would we rightly object? You bet we would. It is certainly worth arguing that atheism leads to a lethal culture of death. I think it does, and D'Souza's recent very civil debates with atheists are good examples of that argument. But D’Souza argues against the “intellectual climate” (as Barry puts it) not the integrity of the person he is debating. If you’ve seen these debates you will note that he actually won them, and my belief is that he has changed the minds of many students in the audiences. Take some time to look at the debates again and ask yourself how and why it is that he won them. But what if D'Souza had pointed at, say, Hitchens during a debate and asked the audience if the man personally carried blame for Pol Pot's crimes? What if he’d taken the equivalent low road of the opposition and just personally made his opponents out to be a bunch of Hitlers? What good would that do, what minds would be changed, and wouldn’t you find it objectionable? I hope so. Whenever one of these tragedies occur, too many people immediately start grinding axes. Dennis Miller has stated it’s best to have at a one week waiting period before beginning speculative comments. It’s a good idea.StuartHarris
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
tribune7 What *started* the massacre in this case was a privately held assault rifle and handguns. Wouldn't it be better to have taken those out of the equation? That Jeanne Assam was able to stop Murray was unbelievably brave, justifiable and fortunate that she was armed. But, coming again from a non-U.S position, I note that she volunteers, with others, at the church as well-armed 'security guards'. Security guards at the church! Whilst, as clearly as I can infer, the service is being undertaken?!? Isn't that ringing any bells? Needing guns to stop the people WITH guns at churches! I am sure non-U.S. readers picked up on this immediately. Have any U.S. readers thought this through (not the immediacy of the act, but the institualisation of this concept?) 56 people were killed in Australia in 2004 due to firearms. 11 344 were murdered in the US in the same year. Gun control is in effect in Australia, yet in the US ... To your 'Gun laws here were stricter 20 years ago ...', well you can still own and use semi-automatic guns as long as it doesn't have MULTIPLE assault weapon features. Before you could seemingly have machine guns, but now you will only will be shot with semi-automatic firearms that fire only as rapidly as you can twitch your finger. That certainly is progress. I am confident that those 11 344 U.S. dead (and approximately 80 000 annually injured) are quite content in the knowledge that gun crime is getting better. Murray has, unfortunately, added to these figures. His motivation was able to be fulfilled by the availablility of legal firearms. A tragedy was able to be significantly averted through common sense and legislation, yet obviously it is too hard to tackle (yet) in the U.S.AussieID
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
tribune7, thanks I hope we aren’t being left out because were "special" As for the gun control- It would bring down murders if you got rid of all the guns but you’d have people getting murdered who other wise could have protected themselves and people getting locked up because they don’t agree with moral president. You know I’m in favor of people having guns... not AK47's - but hand guns for one reason If I got killed but had a chance to protect myself well I could live with that- But if someone killed me and the government NEVER even gave me a chance! Well, Id be really pissed off ;)Frost122585
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
Ill tell you what if i keep getting these slow down messages ill stop posting on this site at all. Its getting rediculous and i work hand on my posts like #31 trying to say somthing creative. If this is an error I hope they will say so cause if im being treated differntly ill just quit.Frost122585
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
I got them [slow down messages] all afternoon. It drove me nuts. I couldn’t post at all. Same here. Thanks for pointing out to our Aussie guest what brought the murdering to a screeching halt, tribune7. In my opinion, the young man in question here had two main problems: 1) He was not maturing. Twenty four years old, living under your parents' roof with too much time on your hands (most likely underemployed) is not the path to fulfillment and happiness. There were some serious issues there that were obviously not being dealt with, by both the parents and the son. 2) His misery was multiplied by the "power" of the Internet. The best thing about the Internet is also the most dangerous thing about it. It allows those people of like mind to communicate more easily and quickly. It can also shield those same people from differing opinions, which normally act as a check against antisocial thoughts and behaviors. Instead of finding others who could help him mature and overcome his hate, he was constantly in contact with people who reinforced his ill will and feelings of victimization. Finally, he did something he thought was empowering, something that would give him the recognition he craved and felt he deserved.angryoldfatman
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Frost --why am i getting “slow down” when i havent posted in 48 hours? I got them all afternoon. It drove me nuts. I couldn't post at all.tribune7
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
We also learnt that stringent gun control continues to save lives. It doesn’t stop killing, but certainly halts massacres What stopped a massacre in this case was a privately owned handgun used by a private citizen. Gun laws here were stricter 20 years ago, and violent crime -- including murder -- was worse.tribune7
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Specs et al I have a confession. I am a plagirist. Only 7 words or so in post 16 were my own. Here's the true author. “Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. . . . This would apply to less atheists that I know than to other groups I know. I beg to differ entirely. Anyway, it certainly seems atheism can provide one with the false courage to commit murder suicide. KF -- well said as always.tribune7
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
testtribune7
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply