tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3600339396421149343..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Moral OutrageAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5029474259807725782007-10-31T13:42:00.000-06:002007-10-31T13:42:00.000-06:00"That person who used the Hitler and Stalin Cliché..."That person who used the Hitler and Stalin Cliché has effectively called you a violent, dangerous, murderer. You want to sit there and say, “Excuse me, sir. I hope you don’t mind if I point out that your argument contains something of a fallacy.”"<BR/><BR/>This line made me laugh! It is too true - a lot of atheists like to respond to blanket philosophically-unfounded statements from christians by whipping out the logical sledgehammer and beating it to the ground in silent conversation. It is unfortunate that nobody listens to or watches this process other than atheists.<BR/><BR/>I have to agree, the use of this cliche is definitely hate speech in some sense. I don't think the intent is necessarily hate speech though (or, at least not in the cases where it has been directed at me). I think it has more to do with the christian's need to put the atheist on a lower moral ground, and this is the quickest way to do it, and it leads to a conversation that is ultimately fruitless. Everyone only remembers the first proposition of the argument, and it's "truth" is so common sense to a theist that it is simply accepted.<BR/><BR/>As far as an effective response to the use of the cliche:<BR/><BR/>1. Moral outrage is definitely a good option. Let's use it!<BR/><BR/>2. I'm still a fan of the "Excuse me, sir. I hope you don’t mind if I point out that your argument contains something of a fallacy." part of this. However, my beef with this cliche is not that I would necessarily want to debunk it, so much is use it as a starting point for reframing how a christian thinks about morality in the first place. After all, the discussion of whether morality is independent of god or dependent always leads to some rather interesting arguments, and the question of whether moralism is logical necessity / what morality "is" in the ontological sense. If we can get into that kind of conversation, we aren't talking about the relative ethical nature of atheists vs. theists, but instead of what defines the ethics of humanity as a whole and how the moral conscience is formed. I think that's a much more productive use of our argumentative efforts than trying to 'counter' the claim by tallying how many people were killed in the crusades. This is, as you pointed out, a pointless and silly argument. Let's use it as an opportunity to reframe and start over with the christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85110372674426678372007-10-28T15:32:00.000-06:002007-10-28T15:32:00.000-06:00"They use this argument because they love to use i..."They use this argument because they love to use it. . . . However, the problem has its root in their desires – their addiction to hate."<BR/><BR/>Based on the fact that they display hatred in many other ways, I agree. I also agree with you that Sam Harris' appeasement policy of ducking below the radar is inappropriate.<BR/><BR/>However, I think that the direction of this 'Stalin was an atheist' argument, like so many religionist arguments, is based on 'tu quoque' thinking. Religionists imagine that the way to 'win' an argument is to turn that argument around against their opponents. This, after all, is how they 'think'. Such emotional arguments appeal to other religionists, so they cannot understand why playground tactics don't work with us.<BR/><BR/>They use tu quoque fallacies widely. When atheists justifiably say that religion is, er, religion, religionists turn that around by falsely claiming that atheism is a religion. <BR/><BR/>I agree that logic and facts are the best atheistic counters to theistic fallacies, but many religionists are emotionally incapable of facing truths. If these people were truly interested in the truth value of arguments or in logic, then they would be atheists. <BR/><BR/>Their basic problem in argumentation arises in the intrinsic need to argue from a misinterpretation of the evidence or from simplistic and long-refuted theological arguments. <BR/><BR/>Theists are ill-equipped to deal with the fact that atheism is based upon experimentally tested interpretation of contrary evidence, so various emotional fallacies are all that remain to them.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06516148606088904380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24538855332474791232007-10-28T11:43:00.000-06:002007-10-28T11:43:00.000-06:00I think Harris has an ulterior motive for his stan...I think Harris has an ulterior motive for his stance. While he is an atheist, I don't consider him to be either areligious or antimetaphysical; witness what can only be called a religious defense of Buddhism in "The End of Faith."<BR/><BR/>That's the ultimate, though by no means the only reason, why I gave that book a two-star rating, and a grudging one at that, on Amazon.<BR/><BR/>In general, for having a philosophical degree and being a graduate student in neuroscience, Harris doesn't seem to use his education very well.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2103275621195658182007-10-17T13:22:00.000-06:002007-10-17T13:22:00.000-06:00thanks!thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91188503621018318432007-10-17T10:21:00.000-06:002007-10-17T10:21:00.000-06:00Deep ThoughtI could use your question about how I ...<B>Deep Thought</B><BR/><BR/>I could use your question about how I make moral judgments by suggesting you buy the book listed on the right: "A Better Place: Selected Essays in Desire Utilitarianism."<BR/><BR/>Or, you can search this blog for entries on desire utilitarianism. Starting with, perhaps, <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/03/rehearsing-in-my-mind.html" REL="nofollow">What Is Desire Utilitarianism?"</A>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42652935585379601032007-10-17T09:27:00.000-06:002007-10-17T09:27:00.000-06:00Alonzo, How do you determine that you should be "...Alonzo,<BR/> How do you determine that you should be "morally outraged" at such a comment? In the piece you link to here you state,<BR/><BR/> "In fact, atheism says nothing about moral values, other than to say that certain premises in moral arguments (those that take the form, 'there exists a God such that . . .') are false and play no role in sound moral reasoning. Atheism says nothing about what remains after this error is removed."<BR/><BR/> How *do* you form moral judgments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39682539388809800452007-10-15T12:47:00.000-06:002007-10-15T12:47:00.000-06:00halimathYou are correct. I meant to refer to this ...<B>halimath</B><BR/><BR/>You are correct. I meant to refer to this type of language as a moral crime, or a moral wrong. However, because it is speech it should be protected from legal penalties - from being a statute crime.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32390500820443997992007-10-15T11:49:00.000-06:002007-10-15T11:49:00.000-06:00Of course, the mere fact that Hitler and Stalin ar...Of course, the mere fact that Hitler and Stalin are invoked does not mean that the point being made is not valid. I, personally, use this cliche and feel it is justified. The situation I use it in is very common and goes something like this:<BR/><BR/>atheist: "Religion is terrible! Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-burnings! All the fault of religion!"<BR/><BR/>me: "That is an attempt to take very complex issues and boil them down to 'religious people are evil'. I might as well point to the Khmer Rouge and say 'explicit atheists have a higher body count than explicit theists'."<BR/><BR/> As you point out yourself, the Crusades and Inquisition cliche is the same error from the other side. I use the Stalin/Khmer Rouge cliche to point out that too broad a brush simply tars everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22964242829458176902007-10-15T11:01:00.000-06:002007-10-15T11:01:00.000-06:00There should be an organized campaign to track and...<I>There should be an organized campaign to track and log the use of the Hitler and Stalin Cliché, and to brand its use as a hate crime (because it is a hate crime).</I><BR/><BR/>From reading your blog in the past, and from reading your follow-up to this post from the next day, I don't think you meant to call the use of the Hitler and Stalin Cliche a "hate crime"; I would think that making something a "crime" implies responding to it with criminal penalties (i.e., violence) rather than mere words.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you meant "hate speech," which doesn't seem to have the same implication?Zerotarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11914860828928751461noreply@blogger.com