Do Dawkins and Dennett Incite to Hatred?

No - I think more the language pattern of Hitchens in this one [dry sarcasm fully intended].

Seriously, though - his words read straight from the recent debates had between Hitchens and various religious thinkers I have heard of late as Hitchens promotes his latest polemic on religion.

On a brighter note - humans will apparently be evolving much quicker now (most likely toward blissful, non-religious civility).:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316375,00.html

Sounds more like Hitchens, what with religion poisoning everything, and all. Of course, I never want to reduce it to the fairytale level of speak against Christians and somewhere a Christian dies, the way gay activists do.

We need to be mature enough not to replicate that kind of propaganda. Words don’t kill people, however they can get in the hands of mentally ill people and become their motivation.

If you want to read more of his writings than google nghtmrchld26.

It’s pretty dumb to be blaming atheists for this. This is what I wrote on another forum.

“”"
That’s a key point. He mentions in his writings that many people “reached out” to him in these churches. Even those people on that message board tried to get him to seek help. He wouldn’t go. He seems like someone who would only be happy if everything went his way and would always bite the hand that fed him. Everyone, including his parents, probably gave up on him and he became isolated. He probably did nothing but sit on is puter all day and wallowing in his own self pity over past social wrongs.
“”"

Just playing the other shoe here, but..

I think it would be good to know exactly *why* it is dumb to blame atheists for this. After all, the writings of Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens never hesitate at all to caricaturize and directly blame the religious whenever they are connected (correctly or not)in any way to heinous acts of this nature. Seems this shoe can be comfortably worn on the atheist side as well, no?

I have to say how impressed I have been that this blog is emerging from a self-imposed “keep it to the science” straightjacket and unashamedly tackling the materialist/atheist position on more fronts.

We will make more progress by calling out the influence of Darwinism in a larger context, in a social and philosophical context and not just a scientific one. We need to continue to point out those connections between materialism/atheism and eugenics, nihilism, mass murders and general sociopathic and psychotic behaviour.

I am not an atheist, but I really struggle with the rush to blame them for every tragedy. So let me pose another interesting question.

Murray had been in the Youth With a Mission program and appears to come from a good Christian family (he was homeschooled and his brother apparently attends Oral Roberts University). Rather than blaming atheists should consider that perhaps the Christian community needs to figure out more effective ways to minister to the needs of mentally ill individuals?

Arguing that atheism has no creed is very close to the current debate over tolerance. Those who argue heatedly for tolerance are typically doing so in a self-refuting fashion. ie: That’s intolerant! (as if they have no stance whatever in the matter).

Atheists often enjoy the comfort of falling back on the false notion that they are “creedless” or neutral, but will readily co-opt Judeo-Christian concepts of good and evil when distinguishing between say, those who are “just nasty” or those who are “very nice.”

Evolution and Abiogenesis fall neatly into this discussion, because, as Dawkins so famously put it - these two beliefs made it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. Back then, it was religion that scoffed and ridiculed (recall Huxley and Wilberforce exchange on ape descent). Now - it is that sacred priesthood of atheistic evolutionists that have turned the tables and will not allow open discussion.

I should note that my arguments above are not made necessarily to blame atheists for this recent shooting, but BarryA’s original question here is quite relevant in this debate because the premier atheists (those who are the apparent spokes persons for that worldview) are constantly bringing up the supposed connection between religion and terrible acts of humanity.

The real question for me becomes: Can I attribute this act to the teachings of Christ and his followers? Can I attribute it to the teachings of Mohammed and his followers? That of Nietzsche? I have to ask myself: WWSD? - What would Stalin do?

[That last one should be a bumper sticker I think]

I really struggle with the rush to blame them for every tragedy.

They aren’t blamed for every tragedy. But this is interesting:

Dawkins visits Colorado Springs to discuss the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States. He visits the New Life Church, an $18 million worship centre where Pastor Ted Haggard at the time presided over a 14,000 strong congregation . . . Dawkins interviews Haggard and begins by likening the worship experience to a Nuremberg Rally of which Goebbels might have been proud . . .

Another point to ponder:

Let’s say we some powerful organizations calling themselves Christian make documentaries, publish books in which atheism is called “the root of all evil,” a virus etc. and someone picks up a gun, enters a meeting of atheists and kills several.

Would Christianity be blamed?

Do you really need a hint as to what the answer would be?

It should also be noted that Christian groups do make documentaries, publish books, preach sermons condemning atheism, yet no violence has been reported because of this.

I have to disagree with JWarner in #5 that these posts are a good idea (no offence to BarryA). We don’t know enough yet, to have any defensible position on what happened!

We can speculate on motivations ad nauseum, but until there’s some real evidence we can’t jump to any conclusions regardless of how it might fit with our world view. Back to the science, please!

tribune7, I am not exactly sure what your point is? Are you saying that Dawkins is to blame for Murray’s actions because he visited Colorado Springs several years ago? That really stretches the limits of credulity.

Although as long as we are engaging in credulous speculation, shouldn’t we note that Colorado Springs is home to Focus on the Family and wonder if perhaps there was more that could have been done to help the Murray family deal with their troubled son?

I do not think it is wise to blame Dawkins for some crazy kook. On the other hand, if there is a war between the United Atheist Alliance and the Allied Atheist Alliance and they murder the one wise one that questions them…yes I would hold Dawkins responsible for this state of affairs.

Are you saying that Dawkins is to blame for Murray’s actions because he visited Colorado Springs several years ago?

What I’m saying is that atheism is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects atheism from normal criticism.

Let’s now stop being so damned respectful.

BarryA,

“I don’t know, but it is an interesting question.”

That’s right, you don’t know — so don’t ask the question.

Nothing personal, but unless you have very convincing evidence that this particular killer claimed he was directly acting on the writings of Dennett and Dawkins, you should just shut the hell up.

Dancing around in the blood of victims only 48 hours after they’re dead in order to make a rhetorical point is kind of sick. You’re not doing anybody any good.

StuartHarris - That’s good, let out the anger. I’ll get a couch. When you are all fnished, you can reasonable establish the proper number of hours to elapse before the forum can again return to “dancing around in the blood.”

Tribune, I would note that you didn’t really answer the question. You seem to want the reader to walk away with the impression that atheism is to blame. But you seem to lack the conviction to commit yourself to this premise.

Fair enough. Are you willing to accept the proposition that perhaps, given the background, that the religious community, for all it’s outreach to troubled individuals, may have failed this one?

What about the Virginia Tech killings? Should we blame Dawkins and Dennett there too? But Cho was a Christian so can’t do that. He was some screwed up loner who hated rich kis. There are probably hundreds of these events that take place over the years around the world and most of the time it can be placed at the foot of some dysfunctional individual(s).

I don’t think it is any good pointing at these events and if one wants to attack atheism, it has to go where more harm is being done, not some occasional odd ball killing people. The only good thing is that the church has an armed guard who could shoot.

“Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness.
This would apply to less atheists that I know than to other groups I know.

And I also know atheists who don’t agree with Dawkins and these other ‘atheist leaders’. Atheists don’t follow any clergy.

But more to the point, this man was clearly deranged. Blaming atheists seems a little left field.
Our thoughts should be with the victims and their families.

StuartHarris wrote:
“That’s right, you don’t know — so don’t ask the question.”

How is it that someone is supposed to find the answer to a question if they don’t ask it?

Asking WHETHER the shooter might have been motivated by atheist propaganda need not imply that the shooter, in fact, WAS motivated by atheist propaganda. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. It’s an interesting question.

Specs (19) said: “Are you willing to accept the proposition that perhaps, given the background, that the religious community, for all it’s outreach to troubled individuals, may have failed this one?”

Absolutely. Many people have been hurt or disappointed by Christians, including me. But the question being asked here is not, “Who hurt this guy’s feelings?” The question is, “What ideas influenced, or allowed him to justify, his actions?” If the quotes BarryA provided are true, then this guy thought Christians are the cause of all pain and suffering in the world. Which is exactly what some prominent atheists are publicly espousing. Couple that idea with the belief that humans have no intrinsic value but are merely the accidental by-product of nature, and you have a recipe for atrocity. The difference between Matthew Murray and someone like Hitchens, is that, unfortunately, Matthew is deranged enough to act consistenly with his beliefs, while, thankfully, Hitchens is not.

The whole point is that he was deranged and not thinking. He’s not like someone like Stalin or Mao or Osama. They need a convincing nihilistic ideology to get people to follow and carry out atrocities. A deranged person is not dependent on an ideology and will just find another excuse to kill if the original reason doesn’t work.

One thing to keep in mind: Some people here are arguing that this case shouldn’t be viewed as having anything to do with atheism, because clearly the killer was deranged.

I’m sorry, but, that doesn’t fly. Part of the New Atheist argument is that, even if many or even most religious people are personally civil, religion and faith acts as an enabler for the crazier, more violent people. The OP made it clear that the question isn’t whether any particular atheist is personally responsible for these and other killing sprees - Barry asked questions about contributions to a social climate. And I’d personally argue that, considering the question of what religious (particularly Christian) cultures promote and directly/indirectly encourage has been a battleground for the atheists, asking what atheism - and in particular, New Atheism and the attitudes some of its most vocal and visible leadership particularly encourages - promotes in turn is not only valid, but important.

And I also reject the implication that it’s unChristian or unfair to ask or entertain the possibility that some parts of modern atheism can set the groundwork for some bad things. Writing every shooting or attempted shooting off as ‘just the act of someone who is deranged’ without questioning what could be contributing to the events is irresponsible.

the killer said that Christians are to blame for most of the problems in the world. One wonders where he got that notion. I think it is a fair question to ask whether Darkins, Dennett and Hitchens have gone too far with their inflammatory rhetoric.

It is also, then a fair question to ask if his being dropped from the Youth With a Mission program led to an irrational feeling of rejection that manifested itself as a hatred for those that he felt abandoned him. I am not saying that is what happened, but it is an interesting question. As you rightly point out “[h]uman motivation is rarely simple, linear and direct.”

All:

We do need to be calm and sympathetic, and to be willing to wait on evidence before drawing firm conclusions.

However, we should also recognise that in recent years, secularists have been deeply — and even on a routine and often celebrated basis — involved in a rhetoric of incivility bordering on hatred of Christains that has materially helped polarise and poison the atmosphere in contemporary Western Culture.

For instance, it is probably just a little ironic to note:

1] This very past w/end, we saw the global opening of the US$180mn Golden Compass movie, based on the works of Mr Pullman, who according to at least one reviewer, has declared in critique of C S Lewis, that his Chronicles of Narnia were written in defense of “a religion whose main creed seemed to be to despise and hate people unlike yourself.” [Surely, Mr Pullman should know the substance of the Sermon on the Mount and its most important quote, from Matt 7:12? What of Gal 3:28? And, what is so hard to understand in the words "For God so loved the WORLD . . ." in Jn 3:16? What is his rhetoric telling us, then?]

2] In the underlying His Dark Materials trilogy, Christianity is EXPLICITLY and repeatedly made into a fount of unmitigated evil, and God is made into a fraud and a farce. Some very troubling attitudes and behaviours are encouraged — lending further telling force to the observation made by Christian critics of Western Culture ever since Paul [Cf Rom 1:19 ff], that turning one’s back on God in resentful ingratitude is a prelude to morally chaotic behaviour. Why is Hollywood spending US$ 180 mn to promote the works of a man who does that sort of thing?

3] Dawkins, of course [and as Trib 7 reminds us in that linked article, is notorious for insisting that those who reject his evolutionary materialism are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."

4] As Trib7 pointed out, The immediate imagery that came to Dawkins’ mind when he looked at worship in the very church where the murders happened, is a comparison to “a Nuremberg Rally of which Goebbels might have been proud.”

5] As a telling parallel, in Vernon, CT, the Connecticut Valley Atheists put up a 3-sided holidays sign in Central Park, showing the pre-9/11 WTC towers with the sun shining through the middle — the light makes a CROSS — and with the slogan: “Imagine no religion.” CVA spokesman Denis Hines is reported as saying that “Use of the image is meant to say the Twin Towers would still be standing were it not for religion.”

6] More broadly, there is a longstanding pattern among opinion leaders and shapers, all the way up to the professoriat, of reciting long litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom in a context that lacks the balance that recognises the good that many, many Christians have done — especially in the development of modern liberty. (Of course,there is a tellingly widespread lack of recognition that many of the sins of Christendom that are decried are long-standing human problems, and indeed, it was often Christians who — motivated by Gospel Ethics — were the first or among the first to stand up to them and work towards reformation. The abolition of slavery is a capital case in point; cf. here the life story of William Wilberforce and Thomas Buxton.)

7] Indeed, CO is the very state where in the Columbine high school attacks, Christianity was a focus for murderous hatred. It is not at all surprising to see in the AP reports, that this murderer dressed in a manner reminiscent of the earlier attackers.

In short, there is a serious need to look at the sort of climate of feelings that is being cultivated in the US [and elsewhere], and coming strongly from the secularist elites.

This one is a wake-up call.

For, there is such a thing as the saying that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind . . .

GEM of TKI

The *reasoning* that lay in the minds of individuals who so willfully take lives, will forever rest in the murkiest depths of their minds.

The *reasons*, though, they extoll for undertaking the crimes are usually something tangible to them, be it racially motivated, retribution or agenda driven. This doesn’t make it right, but for them it is corporeal. This latest one seems to have the hallmarks of this. EvolutionISM, as Patrick correctly acknowledges, may be a basis of this particular incident as the shooter needed to hold to a particular *reason* to advance his *reasoning*. It is, also, very early to make a final call on the ultimate motivation in this particularly sad incident.

Coming, though, from a non-U.S. geographical standpoint, our daily serving of what-is-happening-in-the-US through the different media is always Hollywood, Iraq-war-stories and massacres/multiple shootings. I know that ‘the right to bear arms’ is written into the heart of many American children at birth, but isn’t it time to reconsider why you require so many accessible handguns or military-style longarms in a non-threatened part of the world? We learnt, in Australia, from the Port Arthur Massacre - the gunman claimed the lives of 35 people and wounded 37 others - about the too-readily accessible legal firemarm. We also learnt that stringent gun control continues to save lives. It doesn’t stop killing, but certainly halts massacres that have unfortunately become a saddening sleight on the greatness that is the U.S. Since Port Arthur, deaths from legal firearms has continued to plummet. To date, there have been no massacres since Port Arthur in Australia and no doubt firearm control has been an influential reason.

The motivation to kill is still firmly entrenched in the psyche of want-to-be-murderers, but the tools are left out of reach so the devistation that they can wreak is greatly diffused. It is difficult to change the reasons and reasoning of wanna-be killers but certainly, as a nation, you could be much more effective in limiting the harm done.

A better question would be: why, consistent with the atheistic/materialistic worldview, would this action be meaningfully wrong?

Kairosfocus, easy now, lets reinvestigate the intelligentsia’s false dichotomy-

“However, we should also recognize that in recent years, secularists have been deeply — and even on a routine and often celebrated basis — involved in a rhetoric of incivility bordering on hatred of Christians that has materially helped polarize and poison the atmosphere in contemporary Western Culture.”

The issue that I would like to bring to light is the concept of generality or the fallacy by generality. What is it about the west and Christianity that dwells up so much hatred? Most often people get annoyed by those who have more than them, but to hate is another matter. And it is well known that we will blame others for our problems rather than confessing to what we can do to better ourselves. It is part of the human condition to look at ourselves last. Nonetheless, why hate the Christian west so much as to want to kill them?

The great intellectuals have weighed in and they are ambitiously spiteful in their critiques. The atheist down trodden are right. The religious rich are wrong– even worse evil.

But what about the dichotomy between the views of the common atheist man and those of Jesus? We are talking about religion and man here, aren’t we?

To read the bible is to witness Christianity in its purest form. And I remind you that no religion on earth defends the notion of peace, hope and pacifism as much as the Christian text does. To claim as Dawkins does that the essence of Christianity is to hate people unlike yourself is to misrepresent its point. Dawkins confuses the battles of men with the message of the bible. Every mind the on earth thinks that he/she/it is right. No one walks around on the planet daily shouldering the conclusion that they don’t know anything, or that everyone’s views are entirely equal to theirs. This is not about religion this is the fact of the human condition. Even Gandhi demonstrated against the evils of war- even though his political intervention lead to millions of deaths.

Christ died on the cross to transcend the physical world or to right the conflicts brewed from “relative” world views. His only allegiance was to the truth- his truth - not to the truth of this world or the human mind but to the truth that underwrites all good and all evil. To Christ the intellectual and political squabbles of the mere malleable minds of men was not worth killing over- it wasn’t even worth dieing for -

No, Christ died for people to realize that the ultimate faulty bias of man is that which drives his hatred - The one that pins one philosophical or theological perspective against another in hopes of a war-

Dawkins may in fact wish be a prophet for the atheistic martyrs of intellectual left- But not all martyrs see divinity.

In fact I congratulate you Dawkins, and Dennett. You have succeeded once again in crucifying and subverting the meaning of religion in the same breath that you subvert science.

I however will not kill you for it as was “generally” the case in atheistic communist Russia- Nor, will I even try to muzzle your illogical hatred. In fact I welcome your blatant narcissistic dissent because without it we would have no teaching materials.

why am i getting “slow down”
when i havent posted in 48 hours?

I happen to live in “proximity” to both Colorado events (living in CS and having two children who have just visited YWAM sites/events in the last two months) and thank BarryA for trying to attach meaning to such a “senseless” tragedy.

Some have complained that we should not comment. The chief complaint seems to be that we will be unable to get it “right”. To what extent did anti-Christian wonks and their diatribes of the last five years affect Murray? People say we can not know.

On the other hand, that is not what BarryA asked. He brought up a question that needs to be addressed simply because of the “possibility” that certain answers to it lead to the ramifications that we witnessed here in Colorado.

We do not do well in simply offering a casual opinion about what can or cannot be known.

We would do well to form an argument, or to do a little research if a cogent argument is not forthcoming.

Sometimes, though, we would do well to simply answer the question.

I quote-mine Dawkins: those who reject his evolutionary materialism are “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” I picked this one for two reasons: first, it was easy to copy and paste from a previous post, and second, Dawkins has never backed off of it. In fact, he goes further. I recall Dennett and his ideas about quarantining those who would train their children according to their religious beliefs (I believe that was Dennett, at any rate).

This is obvious. OF COURSE these public voices incite hatred. What they are implying is that those “in the know” are to stop the wicked and quarantine the disease. How do I know this? Because EVERYBODY knows that the wicked ARE TO BE stopped and the only thing WORTH quarantine IS disease! I suppose a strict materialist might counter by saying that this is not a matter of hatred at all, merely rational dispatch. That type of language sounds, well, it sounds like the rationale of a few recent murderers. . . or the Nazis, or the eugenicist, or the . . .

We are often insulated from the effects of being hated and the utterly visceral, yet utterly real, response we feel when we find ourselves in that position. However, our ability to insulate doesn’t mean that the hatred doesn’t grow and that such growth isn’t incited.

Mr. Dawkins, what do you suggest we do with the wicked? How would the quarantine look, Mr Dennett?

It may be easy to deny that what we are talking about is good old fashioned hatred when it comes from a smiling old professor with goofy ideas, but try to deny the hatred when you put all the ideas together and combine it with the strange, somewhat surreal, feelings of knowing that you just sent your son to the mall one mile and one half hour from the tragedy at New Life Church.

Again, I am not arguing the case that Murray read Dawkins latest book, (in which case I would assume that he would have simply shot himself) then acted on it. I am answering the question because now is as good a time as any to answer it. Why wait ’til we see Dawkins on NOVA when everything is so “nice”?

It may be comforting, or at least insulating, to mentally march out “the medical model”, sociological snippets, even historical and biographical criticisms of the organizations and people involved, “apparently the security guard spoke a profanity years before in Minnesota” (I read that in the paper — wow!). It frames the story as it were.

What BarryA is getting at, IMO, is that we should NOT frame it to set it at a distance, but to let it pierce us — not just our hearts which are so easily bruised and broken, but our minds which seem all too often ready to rationalize, compartmentalize, and get nowhere . . .

Ok, I’m done.

So, I will venture a framing of the question: How do we differentiate between a “call to arms” (metaphor) and an “incitement to violence?” The difference is reflected in the two corresponding motives, each of which has its own battle cry:

1) “We must change the law and the culture,” or

2) “We must stop these people at all costs.”

As a pro-life advocate, I choose method #1. I often challenge my listeners to get involved by taking after legislators and illuminating minds. My passion is real, but my methods are moderate (I hope). I would do a great many things to eliminate the scourge of abortion, but I would not take a life, nor, would I celebrate an abortionists’ death. Never do I argue that the means justifies the ends, even when I am absolutely sure that I am absolutely right. Does that make me a saint? Of course not. I am simply trying to temper my outrage with a sense of responsible social action. It is my moral obligation to consider the possible repercussions of what I say.
Does Christopher Hitchens take that tack? I don’t think so. When Jerry Falwell died, he not only celebrated the event, he said. “If there is a hell, Falwell deserves to be there.” In fact, it was clear that he hoped Falwell would be there. Nice! The message is clear: IT IS A GOOD THING WHEN MY ADVERSARY DIES! There is simply no other way to interpret his message. His contention is that Christians must be stopped—-period. From what I gather, he doesn’t scruple over the potential impact of his words on troubled minds; he exhibits no sense of proportionality.

It is not the world view that offends; it is the radicalization of a world view. To be an militant atheist is to smear your Christian adversary in a militant way—-to equate Christian evangelization with Islamic terrorism— to mischaracterize the art of persuasion as a “hate crime”—to treat the marginal fundamentalist as representative of the whole—–anything to create an environment of hostility. Their favorite technique is to fill the young with rage by telling them that Christians promote sexual repression and seek to establish an oppressive theocracy and are, therefore, a clear and present danger to the social order. In other words, they lie.

To sum up:

#1 to persuade is to appeal to noble motives.

#2 to instigate is to appeal to base motives.

Insofar as militant atheists are engaging in the latter, I agree with .Barry A

Weren’t the Nazis publishing anti-Jew propaganda, forming the “intellectual climate” that led to such horrific injustice against the Jews, including their mass murder?

Stephenb,

“IT IS A GOOD THING WHEN MY ADVERSARY DIES! There is simply no other way to interpret his message. His contention is that Christians must be stopped—-period.”

HAHAHAHHAHAHA! (laughing with you)

Your right, B. These people display no sense of proportionality.

It baffles me how Dawkins seems so hell-bent on this mission of his to show the world that their lives are meaningless, as if he thinks he’s doing them a favor.

test

Specs et al

I have a confession. I am a plagirist. Only 7 words or so in post 16 were my own. Here’s the true author.

“Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. . . . This would apply to less atheists that I know than to other groups I know.

I beg to differ entirely. Anyway, it certainly seems atheism can provide one with the false courage to commit murder suicide.

KF — well said as always.

We also learnt that stringent gun control continues to save lives. It doesn’t stop killing, but certainly halts massacres

What stopped a massacre in this case was a privately owned handgun used by a private citizen.

Gun laws here were stricter 20 years ago, and violent crime — including murder — was worse.

Frost –why am i getting “slow down”
when i havent posted in 48 hours?

I got them all afternoon. It drove me nuts. I couldn’t post at all.

I got them [slow down messages] all afternoon. It drove me nuts. I couldn’t post at all.

Same here.

Thanks for pointing out to our Aussie guest what brought the murdering to a screeching halt, tribune7.

In my opinion, the young man in question here had two main problems:

1) He was not maturing.

Twenty four years old, living under your parents’ roof with too much time on your hands (most likely underemployed) is not the path to fulfillment and happiness.

There were some serious issues there that were obviously not being dealt with, by both the parents and the son.

2) His misery was multiplied by the “power” of the Internet.

The best thing about the Internet is also the most dangerous thing about it. It allows those people of like mind to communicate more easily and quickly. It can also shield those same people from differing opinions, which normally act as a check against antisocial thoughts and behaviors.

Instead of finding others who could help him mature and overcome his hate, he was constantly in contact with people who reinforced his ill will and feelings of victimization.

Finally, he did something he thought was empowering, something that would give him the recognition he craved and felt he deserved.

Ill tell you what if i keep getting these slow down messages ill stop posting on this site at all. Its getting rediculous and i work hand on my posts like #31 trying to say somthing creative. If this is an error I hope they will say so cause if im being treated differntly ill just quit.

tribune7, thanks I hope we aren’t being left out because were “special”

As for the gun control- It would bring down murders if you got rid of all the guns but you’d have people getting murdered who other wise could have protected themselves and people getting locked up because they don’t agree with moral president. You know I’m in favor of people having guns… not AK47’s - but hand guns for one reason

If I got killed but had a chance to protect myself well I could live with that-

But if someone killed me and the government NEVER even gave me a chance! Well, Id be really pissed off

tribune7

What *started* the massacre in this case was a privately held assault rifle and handguns.

Wouldn’t it be better to have taken those out of the equation?

That Jeanne Assam was able to stop Murray was unbelievably brave, justifiable and fortunate that she was armed. But, coming again from a non-U.S position, I note that she volunteers, with others, at the church as well-armed ’security guards’.

Security guards at the church!

Whilst, as clearly as I can infer, the service is being undertaken?!?

Isn’t that ringing any bells? Needing guns to stop the people WITH guns at churches! I am sure non-U.S. readers picked up on this immediately. Have any U.S. readers thought this through (not the immediacy of the act, but the institualisation of this concept?)

56 people were killed in Australia in 2004 due to firearms. 11 344 were murdered in the US in the same year. Gun control is in effect in Australia, yet in the US …

To your ‘Gun laws here were stricter 20 years ago …’, well you can still own and use semi-automatic guns as long as it doesn’t have MULTIPLE assault weapon features. Before you could seemingly have machine guns, but now you will only will be shot with semi-automatic firearms that fire only as rapidly as you can twitch your finger. That certainly is progress.

I am confident that those 11 344 U.S. dead (and approximately 80 000 annually injured) are quite content in the knowledge that gun crime is getting better.

Murray has, unfortunately, added to these figures. His motivation was able to be fulfilled by the availablility of legal firearms. A tragedy was able to be significantly averted through common sense and legislation, yet obviously it is too hard to tackle (yet) in the U.S.

Patrick and Barry,

Thanks for your comments (#26, and the Addition at the top) on my previous angry post (#17). Your points are taken.

I’ll change my chastisement of Barry from “shut the hell up” to a more polite “counselor, please put a sock in it because you’re hurting the debate against atheism”.

Look, the point of my post is that if we IDists are putting Darwin on trial, then some personal insinuations are simply out of bounds unless very strong evidence exists to support them. In this case the Darwinian camp would be perfectly right to say, “Your honor, I object to this line of questioning. It is inflammatory!” I objected for them. I think a fair judge would say “objection sustained” to Barry’s line of questioning.

If the killer Murray were found to be a Christian ID supporter (and who knows, he or the next one might be), and the Darwinists insinuated that it was the fault of Johnson and Dembski with no direct compelling evidence, would we rightly object? You bet we would.

It is certainly worth arguing that atheism leads to a lethal culture of death. I think it does, and D’Souza’s recent very civil debates with atheists are good examples of that argument. But D’Souza argues against the “intellectual climate” (as Barry puts it) not the integrity of the person he is debating. If you’ve seen these debates you will note that he actually won them, and my belief is that he has changed the minds of many students in the audiences. Take some time to look at the debates again and ask yourself how and why it is that he won them.

But what if D’Souza had pointed at, say, Hitchens during a debate and asked the audience if the man personally carried blame for Pol Pot’s crimes? What if he’d taken the equivalent low road of the opposition and just personally made his opponents out to be a bunch of Hitlers? What good would that do, what minds would be changed, and wouldn’t you find it objectionable? I hope so.

Whenever one of these tragedies occur, too many people immediately start grinding axes. Dennis Miller has stated it’s best to have at a one week waiting period before beginning speculative comments. It’s a good idea.

All:

Generally excellent discussion.

It is very clear that we need to heed the underlying point made by Aristotle 2300+ years ago, in Bk 1 Ch 2 of his classic manual on the art of persuasion The Rhetoric:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

There it is, in so many words:

Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . .

In short, words can drive us mad with rage and even hate. Or, as an even wiser man observed some 700 years before Aristotle spoke:

PR 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death,and those who love it will eat its fruit.

Therefore, we need to pause, rethink a lot of things that go on without question or are even celebrated in our civilisation. But, are Mr Dawkins, Mr Dennett, Mr Hitchens, Mr Pullman, Mr Hines, Times-Warner’s New Line Cinema et al even listening?

And, if they are not, what can and should we — as a culture — do about the poison they insistently circulate?

Now also, pausing on a point or two:

1] Frost, 31: What is it about the west and Christianity that dwells up so much hatred?

Good question. I could answer by pointing out that one man’s call to reformation is another man’s rebuke and call to resentful opposition. And Jesus, in saying that we should not think he came to bring peace but a sword, said as much he knew that what he said and did would stir up hate and lashing out. Speaking truth to power has consequences — it can be very dangerous to your health indeed.

Especially, if you expose the hypocrisies and injustices of those whose power base depends on their being perceived as being good, decent, upright, brilliant, just and wise.

So, a careful reading of the Gospels is an exercise in seeing how a call to reformation led to rising opposition then hate and scheming, then a Kangaroo court, and finally judicial murder — in this case, duly done by those operating under the colours of a religious governing authority. Indeed, one way to read the Gospels is as in part a protest — not against Jews as a people [3 of 4 were written by Jews, and Jesus' core followers were all Jews! Notice too the subtext of the clashes between the Galilean [commercially-based "Red" state] and the educated and sophisticated Judaean city-based elites ["Blue" state]] — a rebuke to corrupt power and its underlying ideological justification and rhetoric.

In short, we are looking here at a very HUMAN problem: sin, and what happens when sinners hold unaccountable power.

(NB: When Lord Acton wrote that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely; Great men are bad men” he was writing of the Renaissance era popes, heading the institution that was supposedly based on the Gospel ethics of Jesus. What a sad and telling irony! And, of course, the past 100 or so years have shown beyond rational denial, that secularist regimes have in turn been even more bloody than the Christian or pagan predecessors. Sin is the constant; all that has changed is that technical progress gives us ever greater power to be destructive . . .)

And THAT, BTW, is why it is so important to look unflinchingly at this and other related problems as we have in recent days.

2] To claim as Dawkins does that the essence of Christianity is to hate people unlike yourself is to misrepresent its point. Dawkins confuses the battles of men with the message of the bible . . . Even Gandhi demonstrated against the evils of war- even though his political intervention lead to millions of deaths.

First: Pullman, not Dawkins.

The point on Gandhi underscores the above.

For, here, a Hindu reformer — who BTW drew stinging and telling contrasts between the formal Biblical religiosity of the British imperialist rulers of India and their behaviour — in turn was assassinated by a fanatic of his own religion, and found himself caught up in a swirl of massive violence as India moved to independence and partition along religious lines.

Today, the hate revealed in that hostility reveals itself in the nuclear armed cold war between India and Pakistan.

Oh, how our hearts and deeds should shame us all and lead us to penitence and reformation!

But, the very call to repentance and reformation is itself an occasion to resentful hostility and even violence. Even, among the circle of would-be reformers.

Solzhenitsyn said it well when he pointed out that the line between good and evil does not pass between men and nations, but right through the individual human heart.

So, let us each and all first contemplate the plank in our own eyes first,t hen see how its removal helps us as we set out on helping our brothers and sisters with the sawdust in their eyes . . . .

BTW, this parable of Jesus is itself pregnant with social critique: it is the man on top of the saw-pit who was most likely to be annoyed over the natural enough reactions of the one down in the pit under the log trying to dodge the sawdust thrown out by the very act of sawing. No prizes for guessing which job usually went tot he junior man. We fault-finders and would-be fault menders should remember that we, too are just as flawed.

OUCH! (Not: “Amen.”)

GEM of TKI

PS: Here is an excerpt, from Bernard Lewis in his famous Sept 1990 Atlantic Monthly piece on the roots of Muslim rage, on the commonplace resentment against the West, especially in that period when it was known as Christendom:

. . . revulsion against America, more generally against the West, is by no means limited to the Muslim world . . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in
patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst . . . .

Slavery is today universally denounced as an offense against humanity, but within living memory it has been practiced and even defended as a necessary institution, established and regulated by divine law [A subtle allusion to the fact that slavery was officially abolished in the Islamic theocracy of Saudi Arabia only in 1962]. The peculiarity of the peculiar institution, as Americans once called it, lay not in its existence but in its abolition. Westerners were the first to break the consensus of acceptance and to outlaw slavery, first at home, then in the other territories they controlled, and finally wherever in the world they were able to exercise power or influence — in a word, by means of imperialism . .
. .

In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy
these historic diseases. [Ironically, Mr Lewis here omits the major role played by Gospel ethics motivated Christians in the relevant reformation movements.]

In short, there are two sides to every story, and it is important that we seek that state of balance that is the true opposite to all extremes.

OUCH, again.

I just find it weird that people even think religious people are so terrible. Have you ever tried to invite a “bible thumper” to get drunk? Aren’t they known as the party poopers because they have this strict code of ethics. BEcause on weekends they would rather go to saturday night church than cause trouble? These church sessions are terrible, they sing songs, tell stories. What hooligans! When I think of “religious” people, I think of a church full of sweet old ladies. To think these people are bad terrible people. Ooh man, I am laughing because I just immagined an old lady after church going out in her church cloths and doing a drive by. Come on people haha

Barry,

I’m in my early fifties and spent the first four decades of my life as an atheist.

Here at UD, we talk amongst ourselves an awful lot. Bill throws a jab at some anti-ID article he’s read, and Denyse a hook at some atheist speaker she heard – and then repeat it all the next day. If that’s the feel-good purpose of this site, well, I guess that’s OK. Perhaps it serves to strengthen one’s own convictions and erase personal doubts.

But if we want to advance the debate and really change people’s minds, I can tell you from personal experience that directing shots at particular atheists just isn’t going to do it. It’s navel gazing. We may score some pats on the back from those already on our side, but we’ll do nothing for those who aren’t. In fact we’ll harden them, make them all the more intransigent and make ourselves look worse to the third group: the audience that wants to listen to the debate and is willing to be convinced by positive arguments.

I’ve noticed a degradation of the ID movement in the past few years. The Discovery Institute and many of the blogs have taken on such a reactive and defensive tone. There’s no need for this. I hope it can return to the more proactive mode of discovery it had in the ‘90’s and early 2000’s.

I suspect the climate that Dawkins et al. are attempting to create is similar to that created by Hitler: blame the Jews (Christians, and other religions) for all the world’s problems.

I’m not suggesting that Dawkins et al. would put us all in gas chambers at their first chance — well actually, from their rhetoric and their desired utopia, why would I not suspect that that???

If these atheists create a cultural climate where Christianity is to blame for everything, what would we expect to happen when something goes wrong, and some young person lashes out against the apparent enemy.

Quite honestly, I relish the chance to debate atheists, and encourage them to challenge my beliefs, but these new atheists are over the top into hate-speech land. Perhaps the best way to shut them up is to beat the figurative snot out of them in every debate and show how wrong they are.

So here’s what we know: Matthew Murray was raised in “a deeply religious family” and was home-schooled. He had a history of mental instability to the point that he was rejected as a missionary by Youth With a Mission, where the shootings began.

Here’s what we don’t know: that Murray had even ever heard of Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens. Murray’s rants are readily available on the web, so have a look for yourselves.

Indeed, “thinking people ask questions”. Perhaps the question to ask here is ‘does a repressive hyper-religious upbringing increase the chances of destructive behavior?’ Just asking!

Thanks Kairos, I meant Pullman but I suppose Dawkins has said similar things as well because people like him do not root their intellectualism in a search for truth but instead its enemy, demagoguery.

The point on Gandhi was that as a human being he was caught up in a great political war- one that spilled much blood and that even though he viewed himself as right he was not able to accomplish what Christ did- for Christ was not about stopping man from war- he did not stand in their way in a desperate act of protest- he allowed them to destroy him in front of everyone for no reason at all except “to show the world the lunacy of its hate“- Christ’s death was brilliant, pointed and inspiring while Gandhi’s was tragic

The brilliant mind of George Orwell put all of this into the greatest perspective when he said

“A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him.”

Christ’s death was not tragic because it resulted in all things becoming new and brought hope to man kind. Gandhi’s death was tragic because it was a political death one of this earth- he was destroyed by forces less noble than the message he carried. Christ really didn’t die- and therefore was not destroyed but brought to life- Gandhi will be forgotten about except for in intellectual circles while Jesus has been the protagonist in the highest selling book of all time.

The underling meaning of my post at 31 is that Jesus lived through the evil of the world while Gandhi validated man hopelessness. In this sense it is the utter blatancy that the Christian haters display that helps to validate Christ’s word not in their destruction but in our ability to see them for what they are-

Nazi Germany was the same- it was their blatant evil that lead to their destruction-

or as Hegel once said in his encyclopedia -

“In politics, it is well known how prone the extremes are… we find the consciousness of dialectic in these universally familiar proverbs; pride goes before the fall; too much wit outwits itself.”

It is the divinity of Christ’s peace that made itself known through the evil of human action-

It is the blatancy of these demagogues that makes their defeat easy- if they were more clever and insidious they would try to sell their hatred with small steps and false friendliness, but they have not read their Art of War-

Finally, I would like to quote Robert Browning (one of the greatest minds of all time) who understood man’s absolute need for correction enlightenment, insight, and virtue-

“That’s all we can expect of man, this side of the grave; his good is knowing he is bad.”

We should feel blessed that Dawkins and his side are so easily distinguishable from the truth.

because Dembski and Johnson have not fomented hatred or intolerance against atheists.

Barry, this very site is a running polemic against atheists. The About Us page blames them for “subverting” and “corrupting” the study of origins and using science “illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview.” Allusions (and sometimes even direct comparisons) to Nazi’s, Lenin, and Stalin abound. That is hardly a big ole friendly bear hug for atheists, now is it?

Is the language around here as directly confrontational as that of Hitchens and Dawkins? Well, no. But I always get the impression that such argumentation lies just below the surface. Rather than having the conviction to come out and say what y’all really think, it is couched in the plausible deniability of “interesting questions.” Am I right about that? Maybe not, but it is an interesting question.

An article in today’s Denver Post paints a picture of a youth probably suffering from schizophrenia and reports that he wrote of his feelings of rejection as a motive in his twisted actions. As I have stated above, this boy grew up in a religious family, was homeschooled in that tradition, and attended the YWAM missionary training program. His life was steeped in religion. To suggest that the purple prose of two atheist wags is responsible is not an interesting question. It is an irresponsible question.

There is a person very precious to me who has struggled all their life with clinical depression. Some 5 or 6 years ago, this person was born again and the ensuing years marked their deepest struggle with the depression. It is my observation that, as a whole, the Christian community does not deal with mental illness well. This person was told that their problems were because they were not trusting, and letting go to, God. They could pray their way to health. It was the absolute worst advice possible. Many mental illnesses, like depression and schizophrenia, have a strong component of brain chemistry. It wasn’t until I urged this person to talk to a very specific Christian counselor, who then referred them to a very specific Christian psychiatrist that they were able to stabilize the depression with medication. Their faith in God survived the ordeal of the last few years. Their faith in the religious community, however, did not. There are some things you can’t pray your way out of.

So, there it is. Now, Barry, you know why I challenge you (and Denyse) so hard on your exploitation of the shootings in Finland and Colorado. By taking the easy route of asking “interesting questions” about the environment created by the statements of irrascible atheists, you are avoiding the difficult questions about whether your community is doing all it can to minister to it’s troubled members.

StuartHarris, It is important to point out where people are wrong. That is the essence of my posts at 31 and 52. I agree you don’t lower yourself to their level but to talk about evil as if it is the same as good is to fall victim to the Devil’s greatest trick- convincing man that he does not exist. This sight is for entertainment purposes, it is a place where ID advocates can speak to one another with out government disruption, it is a place for ideas to be heard and all things related to ID to be discussed. The writer for this site are ID advocates so of course their minds are already made up. Its not a pat on the back to call it like you see it. And I remind you that in a hostile climate one must defend itself- for ever little jab we take at DE their is a bomb going off on ID. To convince people in this world of anything you have to stand up for what you believe in, win, loose or draw. No one at this site hates Darwinian Evolutionists- but we do feel that they have hijacked our courts and institutions and in this county change requires action. Not hate, not war but action through words-

Sticks and stones - stuart.

What *started* the massacre in this case was a privately held assault rifle and handguns. . . .Wouldn’t it be better to have taken those out of the equation?

Once upon a time they were. Were things more or less violent before the 14th century? Were there more or fewer massacres?

Have societies that prohibited private ownership of firearms a greater or less level of fear and tension?

You say a gun ban has worked in Australia and that’s fine but here the places with the strictest gun laws have generally been the most dangerous — and the danger has generally increased with the restrictions.

And America is really not all that dangerous a place to live. And the dangerous places have much less to do with access to firearms than bad cultural messages — as Barry implies, albeit not just evangelical atheism although always anti-Christian.

If we were to return Bible readings and prayer to our public schools — as they were for most of our history — I’m convinced violence would drop exponentially more than with any action with regard to guns.

But for some reason certain influential powers here don’t want to consider that solution but advocate restrictions on individual freedom and the ability to defend oneself.

And I don’t know if you’ve ever picked up on this but the same crowd here thad advocates gun bans leaves loopholes for they (or their security people) to have access to guns.

Stuart — If the killer Murray were found to be a Christian ID supporter (and who knows, he or the next one might be), and the Darwinists insinuated that it was the fault of Johnson and Dembski with no direct compelling evidence, would we rightly object?

Stuart, you make a good point, but I’d like to make one in return: No Christian ID supporter has been involved with committing a massacre.

Atheists/vehement anti-Christians, meanwhile, seem to make them rather frequently. Auvinen, Harris, Klebold, and, yes, Timothy McVeigh, were atheists.

In fact, Auvinen and Harris proudly proclaimed their belief in Darwinism.

It is not wrong or impolite to point out this correlation. Actually, it would be wrong not to.

Specs — It is my observation that, as a whole, the Christian community does not deal with mental illness well.

Specs this is a fair point and I’m inclined to agree, but don’t you think media messages and cultural environment might influence a person suffering from emotional instability to do acts of great wrong (or take action that would benefit themselves and others) , and can’t you see that Barry (and others) have an obligation to point this out?

but don’t you think media messages and cultural environment might influence a person suffering from emotional instability to do acts of great wrong (or take action that would benefit themselves and others) , and can’t you see that Barry (and others) have an obligation to point this out?

Two comments. First, there is little evidence that the the “media” and “culture” are what drove Matthew Murray’s actions. Since Barry and Denyse previously suggested we should look to the writings of the “anti-social Social Darwinist” that perpetrated the shooting last month in Finland for his motivation, why shouldn’t we do the same here? Should we ignore that he wrote of his feelings of rejection by the community of believers just because we don’t like where the evidence leads? Just as it is easier to blame the atheists rather than look in the mirror of our own guilt, so is it a cop-out to blame the media or the culture.

Second, even if the media or culture did bear some culpability (an idea that, prima facie, I reject), what do you propose? Anti-blasphemy laws? Extending hate speech laws to cover religion and the religious? Hate speech laws have rightfully been challenged by the conservative community. How ironic that the same community would potentially employee the same hammer when it’s ox is being gored.

No, the solution lies within the Christian community accepting that it may have failed one of it’s own. It comes from accepting that maybe those horrid materialist scientists may have something to contribute to the treatment of mental illness.. It comes from putting aside the cudgel of the cultural warrior and looking for ways to strengthen the faith (and mental health) off the lost souls within your own community.