Can they not invent some new slander, at least?
John Derbyshire (a writer I once respected, albeit as time passes, that respect grows more difficult to maintain) recommends one Andy Ross's blog
So I clicked on the link. The first thing my eye falls upon is this entry, dated 2008 March 8th
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Creationists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that they may be related to other animals do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
This is contemptibly sloppy thinking. The writer here blithely equates Christians who have a dispute with the Darwinian theory as being essentially the same as Nazis and Jihadists. They DO have something in common! Oh, indeed? One wonders precisely what they have in common. Perhaps Mr. Ross means to say that what they have in common is warm blooded, nurses its young, ear bones. Surely Jihadists, Nazis and Creationists are all mammals. For that matter, both Hitler and Charlie Chaplin had moustaches.
No, from the context, it seems these three groups have in common fanatical hatred. But there is an ambiguity in the way it is phrased. Perhaps Mr. Ross means to restrict his comments only to those Christian Creationists driven by fanatical hatred, as opposed to, say, Christian Creationists driven by a tepid hatred, or perhaps by no hatred at all.
Well, there is no idea so obvious that some philosopher, at one time or another, has not overlooked it. What is Mr. Ross overlooking? What did the Nazis advocate, and do, and what do the Jihadists advocate, and do, that the Creationists do not do? Is there truly no difference between them? Is there nothing of note to separate them?
In a nearby parallel universe, the Ross of that continuum is writing on another topic, say, art criticism. Let us peer over his shoulder:
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Expressionists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that portraits should be representative in perspective do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
The Mr. Ross of this parallel universe is more obvious in his intellectual dishonesty, because no one thinks arguing over impressionism versus realism in art is motivated by fanatical hatred akin to Nazi race-hatred. The dishonesty is more obvious; but otherwise it is the same.
Let us select another parallel universe, where a microscopically different version of Mr. Ross is writing, not about Creationists, but about Prohibition.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and teetotalers driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that liquor is sold and consumed freely do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Well, Carry Nation chopped up saloons with an axe, which is almost the same as igniting dynamite to kill yourself and any Jews in the area, is it not? Or is there a hairsbreadth of difference between Nazis and the Temperance Movement?
Let us select another parallel universe, and peer over the shoulder of another Mr. Ross, this one writing on current events.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Democrats driven by fanatical hatred of George Bush do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Now, is the Mr. Ross of that parallel timeline a shill for the Republicans or for the Democrats? Do you think you can guess his party affiliation? Do you think his characterization of the Democrat misgivings about the Bush Administration is a fair, proportionate, well-balanced, and thoughtful statement about the mind and the attitude of the Democrat Party? Do you know of any Democrats who killed thousands of Jews or strapped dynamite to their children in the course of their strongly-felt differences of opinion on this particular controversy?
Would you say that the hypothetical Mr. Ross who equates Democrats with Neonazis and Suicide Bombers was being fairminded? Or would you think that this is a piece of propagandistic crap unworthy of any honest man?
If you are too close to the Democrat or Republican camp to render a calm verdict on the matter, we can take the example from the other side of the aisle, if you like.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Republicans driven by fanatical hatred of Bill Clinton do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Would you say that the hypothetical Mr. Ross who equates Republicans with Neonazis and Suicide Bombers was being intellectual honest?
Let us compare the intellectual honesty displayed in the sentence with that displayed in another sentence written long ago by another thinker:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless.
For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
Do you, then, since you are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if you are indeed such, it will be manifested.
For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves.
For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.
Contemplate the stoic temper of this last sentence for a moment. Savor it as you would a sip of fine wine, or the taste of a gourmet morsel. It is perfect.
No, this paragraph was not written either by Socrates nor again by Marcus Aurelius, albeit the writer clearly reflects their thoughts. It was written by one Justin Martyr, a philosopher of the Academic School. This Platonist was converted to Christianity when, as a philosopher, it was strongly brought home to him that the accusations made against the Christians could not be true if the Christians behaved with the courage they evidently did: it was not logical to maintain the Christians could be hedonists and also be martyrs.
His investigation into Christianity convinced him of the truth of the claims made, and he converted about A.D. 130. He taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165.
His academic colleagues, "philosophers" and "seekers after truth" that they were, somehow found that turning him in to the secret police was easier than answering his dialogues.
There are duties more painful than hatred of intolerance. Justice, moderation, intellectual honesty, a minimum of fairmindness and not deliberately being an idiot rank among those duties.
I will retract my hard statements about Mr. Ross the moment he can show me the mass-graves of the countless victims of Darwinists the Creationists have put into death-camps.
So, my fellow atheists, the reason why I left your camp was due to a conversion that had nothing to do with you. But the reason why I have no regret, no nostalgia, no sympathy remaining for your camp is the company you keep. A man who cannot tell his wife from a hatrack has a severe mental disease. A man who cannot tell a Creationist from a Neonazi is a base rhetorician whose deviation from honesty is as severe as the madman's deviation from sanity.
ADDENDUM: If anyone thinks I am quoting Mr. Ross out of context, let me give the whole of his comment:
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Creationists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that they may be related to other animals do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
The Abrahamic god, the “God of our fathers” (Goof), is a species attractor that I believe shows Dawkins’ genocentric view of Darwinian evolution to be essentially correct. Once you see that, you cannot naively believe in Goof. You can accept its power, just as you can accept the power of hunger as a behavioral driver, but understanding drives out superstition.
That is the whole of the entry for that day: perhaps further explanation or support exist on other entries, or unwritten in his mind, but at this point, my faith in Mr. Ross's reasoning powers, or his ability to express himself clearly, is undermined.
I mean, this is a guy who rejects superstition, but believes in the genocentric view of Darwinian evolution, that little bits of twisted matter in my cells make me believe in God, but SOMETHING ELSE, allows him to have "understanding" that drives out that belief.
I suppose his world view would be shattered if he discovered that disbelief in God were based on a defective gene, or an atrophy of the part of the brain that senses such things.
Imagine the blind man who discovered these little round wet balls in the faces of everyone but himself. He would, as a faithful and unquestioning materialist, conclude that these balls of matter were influencing the brains of the sighted people; there is even a nerve cord running from the matter ball to the brain! "No wonder you believe in Light, that most naïve of superstitions! Those little balls on the front of your face are sending signals into your brains. My face is not defective like yours; my powers of understanding allow me to overcome this absurd belief in "Light", or, as I like to calling it, the Luminous Spaghetti Monster."
Unfortunately for the genocentric theory, genes interact in complex ways to produce phenotypes, and the relation between phenotype and behavior is unexplained, to say the least (even identical twins do not have the same personalities or values). If genes act in concert to produce outcomes, then the outcomes cannot be reduced to single or selfish gene levels. Using genes as the basis or ultimate explanation of human behavior is about as simplistic an idea as astrology, which used the positions of planets in the zodiac to explain human behavior.
Of course, in astrology theory, it was postulated that influences from the stars showered down from heaven and changed the souls and destinies of men born on earth, one spiritual substance impressing another spiritual substance. Astrologers had an explanation, albeit a false once, how the astral powers of the stars could effect the soul of man. But in the genocentric view, there is no explanation, no influence, no mechanism even postulated to explain how the neuro chemical make-up of the human organism leads, or can possibly lead, to magical influences over a man's nature and destiny.
I was once an atheist and now I am a Christian. Did my genes change? Was there a hidden chemical in my brain that waited until I was 42 before it released its mystical philosophy-changing power? Which gene, precisely, makes me worship Jehovah but not Jove?
And what makes you atheists think your genes are not the defective ones, that you are missing something the rest of us have? Since atheists range from Objectivists to Marxists to Nihilists, the absence of the God-gene seems not to have given your tribe any particular insight or skepticism in any other area: you are a remarkably gullible lot, if you consider all the branches of the atheist race. Think of how many of your fellow atheists believed everything Stalin said.
(I call you a race and a tribe, because, logically, if you are missing the God-gene then you must be related by blood to a common ancestor, the first mutant born with the God-Gene missing, possibly Epicurus. I mean, we all know all Black people are Baptists and all Jews are Devoutly Jewish, right? So clearly denomination is an inherited characteristic like eye color!)
You had better hope your theory is wrong, O ye materialists, because if it is true, all that will result is that the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (or whoever is put in charge of gene-programming for the Brave New World) will inject you with the Christianity gene, the "doctrine of nonresistance" strain, and you will then believe that obedience to civil authority is an absolute and unmitigated duty.
You see, if the religion gene is something that natural selection has overwhelmingly made dominant in the human genome, what grounds do we have for assuming that the natural processes behind political and cultural evolution will not likewise favor that same gene? What use is it to throw off the superstition gene, O Darwinist, if the net result is that your fertility rates drop below the fertility rates of your more superstitious and more numerous neighbors?
Come, let us reason together: if the content of the human brain is determined by the composition of his genes, what cause have we to believe that this belief (or any other) deserves our loyalty if it does not survive the brutal test of survival of the fittest?
If the Creationists are more fit to survive, if they prove to be the tougher breed, and if you nonetheless think their beliefs do not deserve our assent, then you tacitly admit that something other then the gene-determined content of the thought is worthy of assent.
This admission, tacit or not, is fatal to the materialist argument: because once you say a person should believe what is true due and only due to the "truth value" of the belief, you admit, nay, you make it a moral imperative, that something other than gene-content determines belief.
In other words, saying that religion is caused by genetics is a slur, nothing else. It is an ad Hominem attack, and a clumsy one at that. "Your beliefs are not rational, because all beliefs are caused by behavioral determinants in the genes. My beliefs are rational, however, because I believe what is true for the sake of truth." Well, a ghost (who has no genes) debating with a robot (who only believes what he is programmed) might be able to make that statement, for these creatures occupy two different metaphysical and ontological conditions. For we humans, occupying the human condition, the statement cannot be made.
A guy who believes in astrology is a paragon of reason compared to this nonsense. The astrology nut at least has a theory open to some sort of proof and disproof: merely have a baby born on another planet in the solar system, where the planets are not aligned in the zodiac as on Earth, and see the results in the baby's personality and behavior.
The gene nut has no theory open to disproof: he merely postulates that human thinking is the epiphenomenon of genetic code, and he postulates no mechanism, no medium, by which the matter-bits in his genes are translated to the personality types in human nature. It is not open to disproof because it is not a theory, merely an assertion.
So I clicked on the link. The first thing my eye falls upon is this entry, dated 2008 March 8th
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Creationists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that they may be related to other animals do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
This is contemptibly sloppy thinking. The writer here blithely equates Christians who have a dispute with the Darwinian theory as being essentially the same as Nazis and Jihadists. They DO have something in common! Oh, indeed? One wonders precisely what they have in common. Perhaps Mr. Ross means to say that what they have in common is warm blooded, nurses its young, ear bones. Surely Jihadists, Nazis and Creationists are all mammals. For that matter, both Hitler and Charlie Chaplin had moustaches.
No, from the context, it seems these three groups have in common fanatical hatred. But there is an ambiguity in the way it is phrased. Perhaps Mr. Ross means to restrict his comments only to those Christian Creationists driven by fanatical hatred, as opposed to, say, Christian Creationists driven by a tepid hatred, or perhaps by no hatred at all.
Well, there is no idea so obvious that some philosopher, at one time or another, has not overlooked it. What is Mr. Ross overlooking? What did the Nazis advocate, and do, and what do the Jihadists advocate, and do, that the Creationists do not do? Is there truly no difference between them? Is there nothing of note to separate them?
In a nearby parallel universe, the Ross of that continuum is writing on another topic, say, art criticism. Let us peer over his shoulder:
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Expressionists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that portraits should be representative in perspective do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
The Mr. Ross of this parallel universe is more obvious in his intellectual dishonesty, because no one thinks arguing over impressionism versus realism in art is motivated by fanatical hatred akin to Nazi race-hatred. The dishonesty is more obvious; but otherwise it is the same.
Let us select another parallel universe, where a microscopically different version of Mr. Ross is writing, not about Creationists, but about Prohibition.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and teetotalers driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that liquor is sold and consumed freely do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Well, Carry Nation chopped up saloons with an axe, which is almost the same as igniting dynamite to kill yourself and any Jews in the area, is it not? Or is there a hairsbreadth of difference between Nazis and the Temperance Movement?
Let us select another parallel universe, and peer over the shoulder of another Mr. Ross, this one writing on current events.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Democrats driven by fanatical hatred of George Bush do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Now, is the Mr. Ross of that parallel timeline a shill for the Republicans or for the Democrats? Do you think you can guess his party affiliation? Do you think his characterization of the Democrat misgivings about the Bush Administration is a fair, proportionate, well-balanced, and thoughtful statement about the mind and the attitude of the Democrat Party? Do you know of any Democrats who killed thousands of Jews or strapped dynamite to their children in the course of their strongly-felt differences of opinion on this particular controversy?
Would you say that the hypothetical Mr. Ross who equates Democrats with Neonazis and Suicide Bombers was being fairminded? Or would you think that this is a piece of propagandistic crap unworthy of any honest man?
If you are too close to the Democrat or Republican camp to render a calm verdict on the matter, we can take the example from the other side of the aisle, if you like.
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Republicans driven by fanatical hatred of Bill Clinton do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
Would you say that the hypothetical Mr. Ross who equates Republicans with Neonazis and Suicide Bombers was being intellectual honest?
Let us compare the intellectual honesty displayed in the sentence with that displayed in another sentence written long ago by another thinker:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless.
For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
Do you, then, since you are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if you are indeed such, it will be manifested.
For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves.
For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.
Contemplate the stoic temper of this last sentence for a moment. Savor it as you would a sip of fine wine, or the taste of a gourmet morsel. It is perfect.
No, this paragraph was not written either by Socrates nor again by Marcus Aurelius, albeit the writer clearly reflects their thoughts. It was written by one Justin Martyr, a philosopher of the Academic School. This Platonist was converted to Christianity when, as a philosopher, it was strongly brought home to him that the accusations made against the Christians could not be true if the Christians behaved with the courage they evidently did: it was not logical to maintain the Christians could be hedonists and also be martyrs.
His investigation into Christianity convinced him of the truth of the claims made, and he converted about A.D. 130. He taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165.
His academic colleagues, "philosophers" and "seekers after truth" that they were, somehow found that turning him in to the secret police was easier than answering his dialogues.
There are duties more painful than hatred of intolerance. Justice, moderation, intellectual honesty, a minimum of fairmindness and not deliberately being an idiot rank among those duties.
I will retract my hard statements about Mr. Ross the moment he can show me the mass-graves of the countless victims of Darwinists the Creationists have put into death-camps.
So, my fellow atheists, the reason why I left your camp was due to a conversion that had nothing to do with you. But the reason why I have no regret, no nostalgia, no sympathy remaining for your camp is the company you keep. A man who cannot tell his wife from a hatrack has a severe mental disease. A man who cannot tell a Creationist from a Neonazi is a base rhetorician whose deviation from honesty is as severe as the madman's deviation from sanity.
ADDENDUM: If anyone thinks I am quoting Mr. Ross out of context, let me give the whole of his comment:
Suicide bombers driven by fanatical hatred of infidel kafirs, Neonazis driven by fanatical hatred of cosmopolitan dilution of racist nationalism, and Creationists driven by fanatical hatred of the idea that they may be related to other animals do have something in common. Intolerance of fanatical hatred is a painful duty.
The Abrahamic god, the “God of our fathers” (Goof), is a species attractor that I believe shows Dawkins’ genocentric view of Darwinian evolution to be essentially correct. Once you see that, you cannot naively believe in Goof. You can accept its power, just as you can accept the power of hunger as a behavioral driver, but understanding drives out superstition.
That is the whole of the entry for that day: perhaps further explanation or support exist on other entries, or unwritten in his mind, but at this point, my faith in Mr. Ross's reasoning powers, or his ability to express himself clearly, is undermined.
I mean, this is a guy who rejects superstition, but believes in the genocentric view of Darwinian evolution, that little bits of twisted matter in my cells make me believe in God, but SOMETHING ELSE, allows him to have "understanding" that drives out that belief.
I suppose his world view would be shattered if he discovered that disbelief in God were based on a defective gene, or an atrophy of the part of the brain that senses such things.
Imagine the blind man who discovered these little round wet balls in the faces of everyone but himself. He would, as a faithful and unquestioning materialist, conclude that these balls of matter were influencing the brains of the sighted people; there is even a nerve cord running from the matter ball to the brain! "No wonder you believe in Light, that most naïve of superstitions! Those little balls on the front of your face are sending signals into your brains. My face is not defective like yours; my powers of understanding allow me to overcome this absurd belief in "Light", or, as I like to calling it, the Luminous Spaghetti Monster."
Unfortunately for the genocentric theory, genes interact in complex ways to produce phenotypes, and the relation between phenotype and behavior is unexplained, to say the least (even identical twins do not have the same personalities or values). If genes act in concert to produce outcomes, then the outcomes cannot be reduced to single or selfish gene levels. Using genes as the basis or ultimate explanation of human behavior is about as simplistic an idea as astrology, which used the positions of planets in the zodiac to explain human behavior.
Of course, in astrology theory, it was postulated that influences from the stars showered down from heaven and changed the souls and destinies of men born on earth, one spiritual substance impressing another spiritual substance. Astrologers had an explanation, albeit a false once, how the astral powers of the stars could effect the soul of man. But in the genocentric view, there is no explanation, no influence, no mechanism even postulated to explain how the neuro chemical make-up of the human organism leads, or can possibly lead, to magical influences over a man's nature and destiny.
I was once an atheist and now I am a Christian. Did my genes change? Was there a hidden chemical in my brain that waited until I was 42 before it released its mystical philosophy-changing power? Which gene, precisely, makes me worship Jehovah but not Jove?
And what makes you atheists think your genes are not the defective ones, that you are missing something the rest of us have? Since atheists range from Objectivists to Marxists to Nihilists, the absence of the God-gene seems not to have given your tribe any particular insight or skepticism in any other area: you are a remarkably gullible lot, if you consider all the branches of the atheist race. Think of how many of your fellow atheists believed everything Stalin said.
(I call you a race and a tribe, because, logically, if you are missing the God-gene then you must be related by blood to a common ancestor, the first mutant born with the God-Gene missing, possibly Epicurus. I mean, we all know all Black people are Baptists and all Jews are Devoutly Jewish, right? So clearly denomination is an inherited characteristic like eye color!)
You had better hope your theory is wrong, O ye materialists, because if it is true, all that will result is that the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (or whoever is put in charge of gene-programming for the Brave New World) will inject you with the Christianity gene, the "doctrine of nonresistance" strain, and you will then believe that obedience to civil authority is an absolute and unmitigated duty.
You see, if the religion gene is something that natural selection has overwhelmingly made dominant in the human genome, what grounds do we have for assuming that the natural processes behind political and cultural evolution will not likewise favor that same gene? What use is it to throw off the superstition gene, O Darwinist, if the net result is that your fertility rates drop below the fertility rates of your more superstitious and more numerous neighbors?
Come, let us reason together: if the content of the human brain is determined by the composition of his genes, what cause have we to believe that this belief (or any other) deserves our loyalty if it does not survive the brutal test of survival of the fittest?
If the Creationists are more fit to survive, if they prove to be the tougher breed, and if you nonetheless think their beliefs do not deserve our assent, then you tacitly admit that something other then the gene-determined content of the thought is worthy of assent.
This admission, tacit or not, is fatal to the materialist argument: because once you say a person should believe what is true due and only due to the "truth value" of the belief, you admit, nay, you make it a moral imperative, that something other than gene-content determines belief.
In other words, saying that religion is caused by genetics is a slur, nothing else. It is an ad Hominem attack, and a clumsy one at that. "Your beliefs are not rational, because all beliefs are caused by behavioral determinants in the genes. My beliefs are rational, however, because I believe what is true for the sake of truth." Well, a ghost (who has no genes) debating with a robot (who only believes what he is programmed) might be able to make that statement, for these creatures occupy two different metaphysical and ontological conditions. For we humans, occupying the human condition, the statement cannot be made.
A guy who believes in astrology is a paragon of reason compared to this nonsense. The astrology nut at least has a theory open to some sort of proof and disproof: merely have a baby born on another planet in the solar system, where the planets are not aligned in the zodiac as on Earth, and see the results in the baby's personality and behavior.
The gene nut has no theory open to disproof: he merely postulates that human thinking is the epiphenomenon of genetic code, and he postulates no mechanism, no medium, by which the matter-bits in his genes are translated to the personality types in human nature. It is not open to disproof because it is not a theory, merely an assertion.