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 IN HELL!!!"
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.