Islamophobia and Criticism of Religious Belief

In an article on freedom of expression, Phyllis Chesler writes, “The greatest danger is a closed mind and a finger-on-the-trigger. The minds are closing all over Europe; rather late in the day, a small resistance emerges. American minds have also been shutting down for many years.” She refers to the problem of self-censorship in discussions of issues of race and religion. Focusing on the fear of being accused of Islamophobia, she cites the following test for the same devised by former Green Party presidential candidate Lorna Saltzman:

Lorna Saltzman’s Test

Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?
Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery?
Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere?
Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?
Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?
Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?
Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks?
Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?
Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?
Do you oppose the death penalty for non-Muslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?
Do you oppose “honor” killings?
Do you oppose female genital mutilation?
Do you oppose forced sexual relations?
Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals?
Do you support the right to criticize religion?
Do you oppose polygamy?
Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise?
Do you oppose the quranic mandate to kill non-Muslims and apostates?
Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country’s legal system?
Do you disagree with the quran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?

Saltzman’s test certainly avoids the problem of self-censorship, but I suspect it contributes more to the problem than to the solution. Although, as Chesler points out, it was written “tongue in cheek,” the implication is that all the questions accurately characterize Islam. While I am no Islamic scholar, I have little doubt it does not. For example, to the question, “Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?” one could cite the words of the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” I find no mention of female genital mutilation in the Quran. There is no Quranic mandate to kill non-Moslems and apostates, although there is a strong tradition in favor of the latter. According to the Quran, “These! Their recompense that the curse of God, and of angels, and of all men is on them!” A curse is not the same as a death sentence. As for the former, there are certainly belligerent passages in the Quran against infidels. However, it also says, “And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice.” As for the last question, it is hardly uncommon for religions to assert their superiority over others.

In a word, Saltzman manner of taking issue with Islam corresponds to the fashion currently prevailing in political “discussions.” This consists of replacing rational argument with villification of one’s opponent by associating them with some commonly recognized evil, such as, in this case, female genital mutilation, child prostitution, “honor” killing, etc. Instead of taking issue with an idea, the goal is to demonstrate that the “other” belongs in an out-group. As usual, this familiar manifestation of the Amity-Enmity Complex sheds more heat than light. It is particularly inappropriate in the case of religious differences, where it approaches the bigotry that it claims to oppose. Moslems and Moslem organizations are sometimes reckless in their accusations of Islamophobia, leveling it at anyone who criticizes their religion. Harry’s Place, hardly a haven for right wing bigots, has documented numerous examples of this tendency. They are certainly crying “wolf,” but the problem won’t be solved by confronting them with a real wolf.

Religious bigotry is real. It is a manifestation of an aspect of human nature that has been singularly destructive throughout our history. Unless we control it, it is likely to become even more destructive in our future. Moslems can point to as many instances of real bigotry and discrimination as adherents of other religions. However, when they dismiss anyone who takes issue with their doctrines as an “Islamophobe,” they sacrifice the credibility necessary to fight real discrimination.

The discussion of religious differences cannot be put out of bounds. This should be as obvious to religious believers as to those who, like myself, are not. It is hard to imagine a subject concerning which it is more important for us to “get it right.” After all, the nature of our religious beliefs will have a profound effect on our goals, behavior, and the manner in which we deal with others in this life. If religious believers are right, they may also determine whether we will be surrounded by pleasures or suffer unimaginable tortures for billions of years into the future. In a word, Chesler has a point. These are matters of overriding importance. If we are to arrive at the truth, we must be free to think about and discuss them freely. Considering what’s at stake, we simply cannot afford self-censorship. If religious believers are really convinced of the truth of their doctrines, they should be the last ones to fear criticism of their beliefs.

As I pointed out earlier, I personally take issue with all forms of religious belief. Most of my own reasons for rejecting religion in general were brilliantly set forth more than 250 years ago by Jean Meslier in his Testament. He focused his criticism on Christianity, but the logic of his arguments is, if anything, even more powerful in the case of Islam. For example, Moslems believe that God created human beings knowing in advance that he would eventually subject most of them to incredible tortures lasting not just for billions and trillions of years, but for an inconceivably long time into the future. Such a being does not correspond to the elementary notions of justice that He, presumably, was responsible for creating in our minds. He is supposed to feel emotions such as anger and love that are certainly understandable as human traits that have evolved because they have promoted our survival, but would seem to have no rational explanation as mental traits of a supernatural being. In particular, he is supposed to be capable of furious personal anger at human beings, infinitely inferior creatures he created himself. It is hard to imagine what reason he could possibly have for feeling such emotions, seemingly as irrational for him as feeling personal rage at some obscure harmless bacteria would be for us. Presumably, if God gave us a brain, his intent was that we should think with it. If we do, these and many other logical objections to Moslem doctrines must occur to us. It would seem that anyone who honestly believes these doctrines would not fear criticism, but would be glad to answer it in the interest of saving their fellow creatures from a terrible fate. If, instead, they meet all such objections with cries of “Islamophobia,” and threaten their fellow Moslems with death if they change their minds, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are not interested in promoting the truth, but rather the illegitimate power of those who profit from falsehoods.

Neocon Watch: Another Wolfowitz Sighting

It’s nice to see that Paul Wolfowitz hasn’t been intimidated into silence by his many critics. He just published an article in “Foreign Policy,” entitled, “Think Again: Realism,” that addresses fundamental issues of worldview as they relate to foreign policy.

I do not agree with Wolfowitz on many things, and thought before and after the event that the decision to invade Iraq was wrong. However, he is a highly intelligent and experienced man, and his opinions are worth noting. Looking at the comments following his article, one finds the usual attempts, so typical of our time, to vilify him rather than simply refute his arguments. The Amity-Enmity Complex prevails. Wolfowitz cannot merely be wrong. Rather, as one who has assaulted the ideological dogmas that define the intellectual territory of an opposing “in-group,” he must be evil. Given the nature of our species, this type of reaction is predictable. It is also self-defeating because it excludes rational dialogue. Given our intellectual limitations, it is not to be expected that any of us will be capable of perfect accuracy in dealing with issues as complex as those associated with foreign policy. In other words, the best of us will make mistakes. If Wolfowitz was wrong about Iraq, it was not because he is evil, but because he is human, and, therefore, not capable of infallibly accurate analysis of highly complex situations. We would still be in the Stone Age if we had never listened to anyone who had occasionally been wrong. We become wise by learning from our mistakes.

Pundits Stephen M. Walt, David J. Rothkopf, Daniel W. Drezner, and Steve Clemons have written responses to the Wolfowitz article that are also interesting reads. I particularly liked the following from Rothkopf’s reply:

Reading Wolfowitz’s piece, I kept thanking Providence for giving me a concentration in English in college rather than say, political science. I actually was taught what words mean. (In fact, being an English major taught me that “political science” may be the humdinger of all oxymorons … even if calling “realists” realists and “neoconservatives” neoconservatives comes pretty darn close.) Economists have their “lies, damned lies, and statistics” and clearly, political scientists have their “lies, damned lies, and labels.”
It’s not just “neocons” and “realists” of course who are mislabeled or falsely advertising themselves. There is nothing “conservative” about the reckless fiscal policies of “conservative” champions like Reagan or Bush, nothing “progressive” about the New Deal nostalgia of many on the left, nothing “pro-life” about abortion opponents who also use a misreading of the Second Amendment to allow them stock up on assault weapons, nothing “liberal” about folks who think the answer to everything is greater government control of people’s lives. Say what you may about the underlying beliefs, the labels are meaningless.

As Rothkopf points out, labels such as “realism,” “idealism,” “constructivism,” etc., are best understood as a form of intellectual posturing, and have little if any actual information content. We are programmed to take advantage of the mental efficiencies of categorization. However, once the labels assigned to identify the categories become meaningless other than as boundary markers between ideological dogmas, they have outlived their usefulness. Take, for example, Walts use of the label “realism” in the piece that precedes Rothkopf’s:

I’d try to exclude Iraq from discussion if I were him too, because that tragedy demonstrates the virtues of realism and the follies of Wolfowitz’s own worldview.

Actually, the outcome in Iraq demonstrates no such thing, nor is it rational to claim that it could. One cannot even speak of a single, unified outcome. For example, as far as the Kurds are concerned, the outcome was hardly a tragedy. They might claim it was a vindication of Wolfowitz’ “idealism,” and not the opposite. Certainly, as far as the Kuwaitis are concerned, the elimination of Saddam Hussein was hardly “tragic.” Even if there were universal agreement that the outcome actually was a tragedy, it would not demonstrate the superiority of one general worldview over another, as Walt suggests. To refute such a claim, Wolfowitz could easily point to a plethora of other outcomes, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, that similarly “prove” the superiority of his worldview. One can certainly claim that some of outcomes of our intervention in Iraq were not those expected by the supporters of that intervention on either the left or the right. One can also plausibly maintain that these outcomes were not in our national interest. However, there is no rational basis for the further claim that these limited outcomes can possibly demonstrate the validity or lack thereof of an entire worldview.

I personally lean much more in the direction of Walt’s “realism” than Wolfowitz’ “idealism.” In particular, I strongly agree with his comment, “… that military force is a blunt and costly instrument whose ultimate effects are difficult to foresee, and that states should go to war only when vital interests are at stake.” However, there is an odd disconnect between the language Walt uses against Wolfowitz in his article and the “soft-pedaled” policies he claims to support internationally. For example, the architects of the war were not wrong, they were “dead wrong.” Wolfowitz only “bothers” to mention two realists, and he can’t be “bothered” to be better informed on realist doctrine. Wolfowitz was an able practitioner of “threat inflation” and “deception” while in office, and so on. Given the left’s documented attempts to distort what Wolfowitz actually did say, it would seem advisable for Walt and the rest of his detracters to refrain from accusations that he deliberately attempted to deceive unless they have proof thereof that they have not laid on the table to date. Absent such evidence, one is forced to conclude that Wald is himself a liar. His emotionally laden and pejorative language is better understood as an attempt to seize the moral high ground in a shouting match between ideological factions than to achieve a consensus concerning the type of foreign policy best suited to achieving common goals.

Israel, Sweden, and the Modern Face of Anti-Semitism

If events in Sweden are any guide, European anti-Semitism is in the process of reverting from the coded “anti-Israel” version to the full blown “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” version that prevailed in the days before the Third Reich. The “anti-Israel” form of anti-Semitism has been the prevailing flavor on the left for some time. For example, one can usually find artifacts of it in the form of a grotesque double standard on any given day at the BBC’s “news” site. Now, at least one Swedish tabloid has decided to dispense with the mask and promote the “blood libel” version in unvarnished form.

It has been the unfortunate fate of the Jewish people to fit perfectly into the role of an “out-group” for many centuries (see my post on the Amity-Enmity Complex). Obviously, things haven’t changed. Hatred of the Jews, hidden beneath a thin veneer of “anti-Zionist” camouflage for the sake of political correctness, has been a defining characteristic of the ideological left for some time. An interesting expression of this phenomenon has been the wholesale adoption of leftist “anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist” rhetoric by right wing Islamists.

The lesson here is the same one that history has been beating our heads with for millenia, but that we still stubbornly refuse to learn. It is that the spinners of ideological utopias and the authors of the latest “modern morality” will, inevitably, fail as long as they continue to ignore the facts of human nature. Those facts aren’t going to change any time soon. In the meantime, we must understand and accommodate them. Human beings must have out-groups. They must hate. These things are as much a part of their nature as the “good” aspects of their behavior. Our predisposition to hate and despise an “out-group” must and will have an outlet. One can easily confirm this by visiting any political blog or forum on the ideological right or left and reading the comments posted there. Unless we finally accommodate ourselves to what we really are, we will continue to stumble from one holocaust to another, even as we chase after the latest chimerical ideals. Let us finally accept the fact that we must hate, understand the roots of that hate in our nature as a species, and try to find outlets for it that are not self-destructive. If we fail, self-destruction may well be our fate.

Consequences: The Great Question of Should, Part III

In two earlier posts I explored the consequences of the subjective nature of morality. We have already explored some of the ramifications of that conclusion as far as the individual is concerned. In this post we will continue that discussion.

I touched earlier on the virtual impossibility of amoral behavior. We are wired to be moral creatures, and there is a moral context to all our interactions with other human beings. It is for this reason that the argument that religion is necessary because without it we would have no reason to act morally is absurd. We don’t need a reason to act morally. We just do because that is our nature, just as it is the nature of other more intelligent animals that act morally even though they can have no idea of the existence of a God.

Morality did not suddenly appear with the evolution of homo sapiens. Rather, it evolved in other creatures millions of years before we came on the scene. I suspect the expression of morality in human beings represents the interaction of our high intelligence, which evolved in a relatively short time, with predispositions that have undergone only limited change during the same period. One interesting result of this is the fact that we consciously perceive morality as a “thing” having an objective existence of its own independent of ourselves. An artifact of this perception that we have noted earlier is the adoption of complex “transcendental” moral systems by some of our most famous atheists, who obviously believe their versions of morality represent the “real good,” applicable not only to themselves, but to others as well, in spite of the fact that they lack any logical basis for that belief.

We all act according to our moral nature, almost unconsciously applying rules that correspond to a “good” that seems to be external to and independent of ourselves. I am no different than anyone else in that respect. I can no more act amorally than any other human being. I act according to my own moral principles, just as everyone else does. I have a conscience, I can feel shame, and I can become upset, and even enraged, if others treat me or my own “in-groups” in a way that does not correspond to what I consider “good” or “just.” Anyone doubting that fact need only look through my posts in the archives of at Davids Medienkritik. I behave in that way because it is my nature to behave in that way. In fact, if I tried to jettison morality and, instead, rationally weigh each of my actions in accordance with some carefully contrived logical principles, I would only succeed in wasting a great deal of time and making myself appear ludicrous in the process.

However, there are logical consequences to the conclusion that good and evil are not objects that exist on their own, independent of their existence as evolved mental constructs. In the first place, they evolved at a time when the largest social groups were quite small, containing members who were generally genetically related to each other to some extent. They evolved because they promoted the survival of a specific packet of genetic material. That is the only reason they exist. The application of moral standards to the massive human organizations that exist today, such as modern states, is, therefore, logically absurd. Morality evolved in a world where no such organizations existed, and the mere fact that it evolved did not give it any universal legitimacy. We nevertheless attempt to apply morality to international affairs, and to questions of policy within nations involving millions of unrelated people, in spite of the logical disconnect this entails with the reason morality exists to begin with. We do so because that is our nature. We do so not because it is reasonable, but because that is how our minds are programmed. Under the circumstances, assuming that we agree survival is a desirable goal, it would seem we should subject such “moral” behavior to ever increasing logical scrutiny as the size of the groups we are dealing with increases. Our goal should be to insure that our actions actually promote the accomplishment of some reasonable goal more substantial than making us feel virtuous because we have complied with some vague notion of a “universal good.”

When it comes to our personal relationships with other individuals or with the smaller groups we must interact with on a daily basis, we must act according to our moral nature, because, as noted above, it would be impractical to act otherwise. In such cases it seems to me that if our goals are to survive and enjoy life in the process, we should act according to a simple moral code that is in accord with our nature and refrain from attempting to apply contrived “universal moral standards” to our fellow beings that are absurd in the context of the reasons that promoted the evolution of morality in the first place. In other words, we should act in accordance with the well understood principles of what H. L. Mencken referred to as “common decency.”

In the process, we should not lose sight of the dual nature of our moral programming, which can prompt us to act with hostility towards others that is counterproductive in the context of modern civilization. It would behoove us to take steps to channel such behavior as harmlessly as possible, because it will not go away. We cannot afford to ignore the darker side of our nature, or engage in misguided attempts to “reprogram” ourselves based on the mistaken assumption that human nature is infinitely malleable. We must deal with ourselves as we are, not as how we want ourselves to be. The formulation of complex new systems of morality that purport to be in accord with the demands of the modern world may seem like a noble endeavor. In reality, the formulation of new “goods” always implies the formulation of new “evils.” It would be better to understand the destructive aspects of our nature and deal with them logically rather than by creating ever more refined moral systems. To the extent that they fail to take the innate aspects of human behavior into account, these can be dangerous. Consider, for example, the new moral paradigm of Communism, with its “good” proletariat and “bad” bourgeoisie. The practical application of this noble new system resulted in the deaths of 100 million “bourgeoisie,” and what amounted to the national decapitation of Cambodia and the Soviet Union. In view of such recent historical occurrences, the current fashion of demonizing and reacting with moral indignation to those who disagree with us politically would seem to be ill-advised.

Morality is an evolved trait. Our problem is that we perceive it as an independent object, a transcendental thing-in-itself, something that it is not and cannot ever be. We must act according to our moral nature, but let us consult our logical minds in the process.

Sam Harris and his Butterfly Net: An Account of the Capture of the “Real, Objective” Good

The human brain is a wonderful survival mechanism. It endows our species with unrivaled powers of reasoning, allowing us to discern truths about subatomic particles and distant planets that our unaided senses can’t even detect. It has also supplied us with self-constructed, subjective “truths” about things that exist only in our own minds, endowing them with a legitimacy and reality of their own. Morality is such a thing. It does not and cannot have an independent existence of its own, but believing that it does has promoted our survival. Therefore, we believe. Our brains are wired to perceive good and evil as real things, and so we do. In spite of our vaunted logical powers, some of the greatest thinkers among us cannot rid themselves of the illusion. At some level they have grasped the truth that everything about us, including our minds, emotions, and predispositions, have evolved because they have promoted our survival. On the other hand, they truly believe that one such evolved trait, morality, which we happen to share with many other animals, somehow corresponds to a real thing that has an independent reality of its own. Logically, they cannot justify their belief that good and evil are real, objective things, but, still, they believe it. Nature insists.

The “Big Three” among the “new atheists,” Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, and Sam Harris, provide interesting examples of the phenomena. None of them would be any more capable of providing a logical basis for their belief that there is a real, objective good and a real, objective evil, and that they know the real objective difference between the two anymore than Euthyphro could demonstrate the same to Socrates. Nonetheless, all three of them are convinced that that which their brains are wired to perceive as real must actually be real. They all believe in the objective existence of good and evil, and they all believe that their own moral standards apply not only to themselves, but to others as well. Read their books and you will find all of them laced with the moral judgments that are the artifacts of this belief.

I have pointed out in earlier posts the logical absurdity of the belief that morality, an evolved emotional trait, not only of humans but of other animals as well, somehow has an existence of its own, independent of the minds that host it. Let us consider how one of the “Big Three,” Sam Harris, has nevertheless managed to convince himself that what he perceives as real must actually be real. Harris is a neuroscience researcher. He set forth his thoughts on the subject in an essay entitled, “Brain Science and Human Values,” that recently appeared at the website of the Edge Foundation. After a discussion of the process of discovering scientific truth, Harris asks,

“But what about meaning and morality? Here we appear to move from questions of truth—which have long been in the domain of science if they are to be found anywhere—to questions of goodness. How should we live? Is it wrong to lie? If so, why and in what sense? Which personal habits, uses of attention, modes of discourse, social institutions, economic systems, governments, etc. are most conducive to human well-being? It is widely imagined that science cannot even pose, much less answer, questions of this sort.”

Here, Harris has begun the process of self-obfuscation. Let us set aside the issue of what he actually means by “conducive to human well-being” for the time being and focus on the question of morality. There is no more a logical reason to consider that which is “conducive to human well-being” objectively good than there is a logical reason to consider it objectively good to follow Pythagoras’ admonition to avoid the eating of beans. However, making the logical leap from fact to fiction is no problem for most of us. We “feel” that “human well-being” is a legitimate good. We might even feel the emotion of shame in denying it. If someone demanded that we defend the assertion that “human well-being” is not objectively good, we would likely feel some embarrassment. It is mentally easy for us to associate “human well-being” with “objective good” in this way. It is also illogical.

Instead of simply claiming that good and evil exist because he feels they must exist, all Harris is doing is adding an intermediate step. He points to a “self-evident” good and props it up as a “gold standard,” as “real good.” In essence, this “gold standard” serves the same purpose as God does for religious believers. They believe that God must really be good, and, because He is the standard of that which is good, His laws must really be good as well. Harris substitutes his “gold standard” for God. It must be “really good,” because, after all, everyone agrees it is good. Who can deny it? Everyone has the same perception, the same conviction, the same feeling. In reality, he is just chasing his tail. Instead of simply claiming that the existence of objective good and evil are self-evident to begin with, he claims that it is self-evident that “human well-being” is an objective good. Once we have accepted this “gold standard,” it follows that, since we have established that it is “really good,” then “real good” must exist as well as the basis for making this determination in the first place. Once he has established this “gold standard,” Harris cuts to the chase:

“Much of humanity is clearly wrong about morality—just as much of humanity is wrong about physics, biology, history, and everything else worth understanding. If, as I believe, morality is a system of thinking about (and maximizing) the well being of conscious creatures like ourselves, many people’s moral concerns are frankly immoral.”

In other words, we are to believe that morality isn’t merely a subjective predisposition, but a real thing. It is simply a question of determining scientifically what it is. Once we have done that, then we really should do good and avoid doing evil. Harris continues:

“Morality—in terms of consciously held precepts, social-contracts, notions of justice, etc.—is a relatively recent invention. Such conventions require, at a minimum, language and a willingness to cooperate with strangers, and this takes us a stride or two beyond the Hobbesian ‘state of nature.’”

Here Harris commits the fallacy of associating “Consciously held precepts, social contracts, notions of justice, etc.,” with morality itself. They are not morality, but merely manifestations of morality in human beings living in the modern world. Morality itself predates human beings by millions of years, and many other animal species act morally in addition to ourselves. The most significant difference between us and them is that they lack the capacity to speculate about whether morality is objectively real. Indeed, for them, morality is likely a more effective evolutionary adaptation than it is for us. They simply act as they are wired to act, and feel no need to invent objective reasons for their actions in the form of Gods or Harris’ ersatz god, “the imperative to act for the well being of conscious creatures.”

Harris would do well to go back to square one and consider what morality really is. It is an evolved subjective predisposition that exists because it promoted our survival. Furthermore, it promoted our survival at a time when we existed in small communities of genetically related individuals. It is a dual phenomena. We apply one standard of right and wrong to our interactions with those within our “in-group,” and another standard of right and wrong to “out-groups.” It is reasonable to assume that the wiring in our brain responsible for our predisposition to behave morally, which evolved at a time when we lived in small hunter-gatherer communities, is not ideally suited to similarly promote our survival in a world of gigantic nation states equipped with nuclear weapons. Instead of understanding this problem and addressing it rationally, Harris claims to have discovered the “real good,” in the form of “that which is conducive to human well-being.” In reality, Harris is as religious as the most phantastical southern Baptist. The only difference between him and them is that he believes in a “True Good” instead of a true God. He insists that, instead of understanding our own nature and accommodating ourselves to it, we should all be required to change our nature to conform to his phantasy that a scientifically discernable version of this “True Good” exists. In other words, he wants to take a giant step backwards to the era of the behaviorists and the “new Soviet man,” when it was assumed that human nature was infinitely malleable and could be molded as needed to conform to whatever arbitrary definition of “good” one chose to adopt. He won’t succeed any more than the Communists or all the other architects of heavens on earth have succeeded. Human nature is what it is, and won’t jump through hoops, even for Sam Harris. He thinks he can simply wave his hands, and inconvenient aspects of human morality, such as the Amity-Enmity Complex will just disappear. Others have tried that before him. It doesn’t work. It not only doesn’t work, but, in a world full of nuclear weapons, it is extremely dangerous. If we are to avoid self destruction, it will behoove us to understand our own nature. Creating “brave new moralities” out of thin air and insisting that others conform to them does not promote such understanding. Rather, it amounts to a deliberate burying of our heads in the sand.

I can only suggest that Harris go back to his neuroscientific research. Who knows, one day he may turn up at my doorstep and present me with a vial of distilled “Good”. However, I rather suspect it’s more likely he will eventually come to a more rational understanding of human morality. At least I hope he will, and I hope the same for his two illustrious peers, Hitchens and Dawkins. It happens that the latter has a wonderfully designed website with forums for the philosophically minded. It pleases me to see that, based on their comments, some of the brighter visitors to these forums “get it” when it comes to morality. I suggest that Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the intellectual gentry at take the time to read them.

Sweet Reason at Daily Kos

One can imagine the sage nodding of heads among the Kossites when they read this appeal to the noble virtues of tolerance and understanding by “high bitrate.” My favorite bit:

My personal preference is to listen quietly for a minute or two, and then say in a dispassionate way “yes, I understand that you’re angry, but the reasons for that anger are past. We need to come to a resolution of this issue, and anger isn’t going to allow us to do any productive work. What kind of solution do you see?”

This elevating appeal to the virtues of charity and tolerance was not without its effect on high bitrate’s fellow philosophers. Looking over the posts on the same page we find the latest calm analysis of Sarah Palin as a “whackjob quitter,” guilty of “sheer hysterical fantasy.” Apparently, as we are informed with philosophical detachment, she has been devoting her free time since retirement in the “killing of patients.” I need hardly add that this post also demonstrates the intellectual virtue of prudence, whacking away as it does at the Wicked Witch of the North, avoiding the reckless hubris of those who assure us that she’s dead,

The Wicked Witch is Dead!

and won’t come back

Or maybe not!!.

Next, there is the following dispassionate description of political opponents (or in the conciliatory words of the article, “frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives”), infused with passages written in the “find the good in everyone” spirit of high bitrate’s admirable appeal, such as:

As the hateful rhetoric and dangerous tactics of furious Birthers, raging Teabaggers and town hall intimidators edges towards the brink of violence, today’s bitterly divided Americans are still living in Nixonland.

Next, in keeping with high bitrate’s admonitions to listen quietly and speak softly, we find an article with the “dispassionate” title, “Idiot nation, idiot press,” followed by the meek admonition, apparently directed at a journalist who had trouble memorizing the days talking points, “You have to really, really try, in order to take a story so asinine and report it with such studious credulity. Well freakin’ done.”

Moving on to a more studious post, we find an anthropological discussion concerning the logical basis for the argument that we must assume some people are racists because they have white skin, especially if they are old and male:

You can almost sense (Florida Senator) Martinez’ slow realization that his party is fundamentally hostile to brown people.

A bit further on, we find more closely reasoned arguments to the effect that, if someone disagrees with you, and has white skin, he must be a racist:

The wingers are in a frenzy this week. It has something to do with the black guy in the White House. And to think, we still have 89 months in the Obama Administration.

So much for the voice of reason and the “unclenched fist” on the left. Do you, too, gentle reader, have a difficult time imagining what form this “reasoned discourse” might have taken if it were not inspired by high bitrate’s appeal for “quiet listening” and “turning off emotionalism?” I honestly suspect it might have sounded downright fishy.

Another Paradigm Shifts: The Hunting Hypothesis, Ardrey, and “Pop Ethology”

In 1976, Robert Ardrey published the last in a series of books about the evolution of human nature, entitled “The Hunting Hypothesis.” Ardrey was one of the great thinkers of the 20th century. Unfortunately, his thoughts were not politically correct at the time. They posed a direct challenge to any number of the ideological sacred cows of belief systems ranging from behaviorist psychology to Marxism. They implied that human nature was not infinitely malleable, but based on innate predispositions that rendered mankind unsuitable for the various and sundry utopias the ideologues were cobbling together. In a word, Ardrey had positioned himself squarely in the out-group of all these ideologically defined in-groups. A great collective shriek went up. As usual in such cases, Ardrey’s challenge was not met with dispassionate logic. Rather, he was vilified as a “fascist,” ridiculed as a “pop ethologist,” and denounced as a dilettante playwright who dared to invade the territory of “real scientists.” One would do well to go back and read his books today, because, as it happens, Ardrey was right and the ideologues posing as “scientists” who vilified him were wrong.

In particular he was right about the hunting hypothesis. The best argument his opponents could come up with against it was the absurd claim that, other than a few tortoises and other slow-moving animals, our early meat eating had been limited to scavenging. The idea that the rapid growth of brains with ever increasing energy requirements could have been fueled by the scavenging of four-foot tall, slow moving creatures who had somehow managed to beat sharp-eyed vultures and speedy hyenas to their feasts was really as absurd then as it is now. Ardrey demolished the notion in the first chapter of his book, but, like a dead man walking, it staggered on for years, propped up by the bitter faith of the ideologues.

I suspected at the time “The Hunting Hypothesis” was published that Ardrey and thinkers like him would eventually be vindicated, assuming free research could continue without ideologically imposed restraints. I never imagined it would happen so soon. It’s still hard for me to believe that we’ve passed through such a thorough paradigm shift, and I’m continually surprised when I see articles such as this one, entitled “Pre-humans had Stomach Cramps,” that appeared on the website of the German magazine “Der Spiegel” today. Among its matter-of-factly presented paragraphs regarding the meat eating habits of Australopithecus afarensis, a hominid that lived more than two million years ago, one finds,

The question of when meat consumption began is important because of its association with the development of a larger brain in pre- and early humans. In fact, the human brain is three times as big as that of a chimpanzee. In order to build up an organ of such dimensions, a very large and continuous supply of nourishment must be guaranteed, and that requires meat.

Hunting is the only way of systematically bringing down animals, and this, in turn, assumes a bigger brain. As with the question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, one can’t be sure what came first, meat eating or a larger brain. However, anthropologists assume that, in the beginning, there must have been at least occasional consumption of meat, because, without it, the brain could not have expanded in volume for purely physical reasons.

All this is presented in dead pan fashion, as if no other opinion could ever have prevailed, or the subject could ever have been the subject of the least controversy. Sad, that Ardrey could not have lived to see it.

And the moral of the story? Perhaps we should recall the words of T. S. Eliot from “Little Gidding,”

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

We live too much in the present, breathlessly awaiting the latest news from the worlds of science and politics. Occasionally, we would do well to recall that some very bright people, with a very different perspective, not to mention very different standards of political correctness, actually lived before our time. It would behoove us to learn from them if we really want to understand the time we’re in now. Never accept the moral certainties of today. Go back to the sources, and find out for yourself.

Even the Psychologists have Noticed Human Nature!

That invaluable bloodhound of the blogosphere, Instapundit, turned up another interesting link this morning. It turned out to be an article on the website of “Psychology Today.” Now it happens that I was actually a subscriber of PT decades ago, but I stopped reading it after concluding that, if I really wanted to learn something about psychology, my time would be much more profitably spent reading Stendhal. My sedate, philosophical eyebrow raised almost a full notch when, in reading the article in question, I found sections such as,

Most journalists take a number of psychology, sociology, political science, and humanities courses during their early years in college. Unfortunately, these courses have long served as ideological training programs—ignoring biological sources of self-serving, corrupt, and criminal behavior for a number of reasons, including lack of scientific training; postmodern, antiscience bias; and well-intentioned, facts-be-damned desire to have their students view the world from an egalitarian perspective.


But, having worked among the Soviets, I know that large groups of very intelligent people can fall into a collective delusion that what they are doing in certain areas is the right thing, when it’s actually not the right thing at all. It’s rather like the Skinnerian viewpoint on psychology. For a full half century, psychologists insisted it wasn’t proper to posit anything going on inside people’s heads. Advances in psychology ground to a halt during that time, but it was impossible to convince mainstream psychologists that there was anything wrong to their approach. After all–everybody was using Skinner’s approach, and everybody couldn’t be wrong.

Thinking it must be an aberration, or, perhaps, an example of the tokenism so often found in the mainstream media today, I took a closer look at the PT website. Eureka! I soon began turning up links like this. Evolutionary psychology at Psychology Today?! Can you say paradigm shift?

Well, it’s nice to see that progress actually happens, even in psychology, although I suspect I’ll still consult Stendhal as my primary source for the time being. Meanwhile, it would be nice if all the geniuses in the field who had their heads up their collective behaviorist rectums back in the 60’s and 70’s would visit Robert Ardrey’s grave, perhaps decorate it with a rose or two, and murmur, “Sorry for all the abuse, old man. You were right, and we were wrong.”

The Amity-Enmity Complex: Does This Ring a Bell?

Every habitué of Internet forums and blogs should be very familiar with the kind of behavior Phil Bowermaster refers to in this comment left in response to a post on transhumanism at Accelerating Future:

But that’s not to say that technology has played no role in the recent evolution of political discourse. The rise of the blogosphere and sites like Daily Kos and Free Republic have established a new “accelerated” rhetorical framework for politics which now seems to be more or less universally applied. The basic assumption behind the framework is that there is Our Group and then there is the Other. Any ideas from the Other are subjected to a three-step analysis and response:

1. Hysteria / overreaction

2. Vilification

3. Condemnation

This process has worked great for the political blogs in drawing in huge masses of eager readers, mostly the same people who think they’re up to date on current events because they watch The Colbert Report or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Does it ring a bell?