Sam Harris Myths (5)
A friend wrote me not too long ago complaining about the tone of one of my pieces. This is a gentle soul that nevertheless holds strong convictions without apology and in that respect—his gentlemanly way—he has outgrown me. I mention this to make the point that the blunt speech of people like Harris and Dawkins and company doesn't get my back up; in dealing with views that I strongly oppose I'm sometimes very blunt. And, certainly, I know religious writers that embarrass me with their crudeness and harshness; you know the kind I mean, those that simply delight in the thought that atheists and their ilk will "ROAST INHELL!!!" Compared with some of these people Dawkins is a mild mannered "suggester" of views. It happens (by chance and NS, he tells us) that Dawkins is a thrusting and insulting bag of bio-chemicals hard-wired to think, feel and speak as he does. So be it.
But I don't get the impression from Dennett, Harris or Dawkins that they love us and only want a better world for us. They have no hell to roast us in but they are obviously eager to thrust us down into some intellectual Alcatraz for the stupid, the obscene, the gutless wonders, the destroyers of rich life, and the immoral wretches that feed on a maggot-ridden piece of literary trash called the Bible.
I say they don't "love" us because there's little attempt to persuade us—it's all raw and cutting. "Hey stupid! You've no idea how ridiculous you are; you illiterate, brainless moron that knows no better than to stand in the way of progress offered to the world by me and people who agree with me!" Sam Schulman's Wall Street Journal piece puts it better as he hits the same nail. Take a look and see if you don't think he's right on target. I know Dennett tells us differently but when he creates a community for atheists to band together and it's called Brights you can't help but wonder if Freud would have nodded knowingly; especially when Dennett goes on describe himself and them with evangelistic pride as atheists who are "the moral backbone" of America, people who have jettisoned belief in "black magic and life after death." Harris complained that atheists are seen as arrogant. Some of them are--I wonder why?
Forgetting the science and the philosophy for the moment; as a matter of simple pedagogy wouldn't you think these people would know better than to "Christian bash" if they wanted to redeem us from darkness? Sam Harris tells us he has completed some psychology courses (he's working toward a real science degree, he says) but his courses don't seem to have done him much good. If a man's mad at you, even kids know, you have to change his mood before you can hope to change his mind. Make him mad and he won't hear you well and Harris and company come savaging not only religious leaders and teachers, you understand, but every Christian in the world. "Hey, yeah you, stupid; you parents who are abusing your children by teaching them to be Christians." They're going to get voted into the White House with this kind of pedagogy? Did I hear somebody mention the word "stupid"?
This leads me to think these people aren't writing to persuade anyone. Well, maybe that's an overstatement. Dennett has classes filled with impressionable youths maybe he's practicing what Dawkins accuses Christian parents of—"child abuse".
I don't know how well paid scientists and philosophy professors are but I have heard that book royalties are magnificent. I suppose you could make a career out of promoting atheism (as you can out of promoting religion). Maybe that's what's happening. Bland books and articles don't sell and maybe this new wrecking-crew of atheists is bearing that in mind.
And it would be a mistake to think that only religious people are charlatans or brutal self-serving bigots. If you want your eyes opened about what scientists can do to other scientists that don't toe their line, read Peter Duesberg's riveting book: INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS or Alfred DeGrazia's THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR. It doesn't matter that you might not agree with Duesberg or Velikovskian views; it's the cruelty with which scientific dissenters are treated at times that shows us that not all scientists are passionate seekers of truth.
At an increasing number of sites the whistle is being blown on the gross mistreatment of the vulnerable by powerful scientific establishment figures. The general public is being shown how vulnerable scientists are refused research grants, are shut out from speaking appointments or influential teaching positions if they aren't part of the "in crowd". You'd think to hear Harris (who one of these days will be able to say he's a scientist when he gets his degree from fellow-atheist scientists) that the scientific fraternity is where integrity and virtue has made its home. What naïve drivel! It isn't "austere truth" some of these people are after. I don't say an atheist can't seek truth—far from it. Though in many ways he was a severe critic of religion and of some religious leaders Thomas H Huxley strikes me as a man who was a self-confessed agnostic because he felt he had no intellectual alternative. His blunt response to "Soapy" Sam Wilberforce, a bishop, shocked society, but even there I can't help being pleased because Wilberforce asked for it. But Huxley had no patience with the ignorant, like Harris and Dawkins, who dabble in the Bible and dismiss the entire OT as useless. Huxley thought it was profoundly influential for good.
Sam Schulman is right, of course, you can read these modern atheists from morn till night and you'll not find a new thought. Their arguments are the same tired old mouthings and life has a way of exposing them. You'll probably remember the donkey that wrapped itself up in a lion skin and went around "roaring". But everybody knew braying when they heard it and they saw the ass's rear end sticking out at the back so they smiled and went on their way unafraid.
No comments:
Post a Comment