While I ask forgiveness of those who are tired of hearing me say this over and over, there is a tragic occasion compelling me to repeat my conviction that one of the most important general ethical issues is the way many people all too often think, not in terms of What is right? and What is wrong?
but in terms of Who is right? and Who is wrong? This goes along with the irrational tendency to make negative generalizations and to hold people in a group collectively responsible for the behavior of only some people who are in that group.
Liberals like me are good at avoiding negative generalizations about Black people and women, but I’ve pointed out that sometimes some of us have no hesitation to commit the same error when it comes to negative generalizations about other groups, particularly men. I think that as rational Humanists, we should uphold as an abstract but fundamentally important principle the ideal of never excusing or committing either the fallacy of holding groups responsible for the actions of individuals among them, or the fallacy of thinking in terms of Who is wrong? instead of What is wrong? As Timothy Travis reminds us, the guiding principle of Humanism is that We are all in this together.
The tragic news is that three Muslim students were killed in Chapel Hill. The man who turned himself in for killing them, Craig Stephen Hicks, is an atheist. While many facts are as yet undetermined, this may be an example of attacking these Muslims because of the actions of Islamist terrorists, a horrific example of the fallacy I am talking about. There is also news that the whole thing may have been precipitated by a neighbor dispute about the recurring problem of where to store the excessive number of automobiles our distorted urban environments make us dependent on.
But there will perhaps also be a backlash against atheists, yet another example of the same fallacy. Of course, it should go without saying that atheists like Sam Harris – who has criticized, not Muslims collectively, but some barbaric ideas in Islam – do not sanction this senseless killing. But I will not be surprised if someone accuses Harris or other prominent atheists as having stoked their followers into a frenzy and essentially calling upon Craig Stephen Hicks to do this.
It may be that before this day is done someone online will trace this back to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett or some other prominent atheist, if it has not happened already. If you see an example, please reply to this post with information about the example.
I hope that the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association and other national organizations defending the civil rights of atheists and agnostics will respond to this tragedy, not only to condemn attacking some Muslims for what other Muslims have done, and not only to condemn attacking some atheists for what other atheists have done, but also to make the general ethical point that there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of collective responsibility. And let’s join together to promote the acceptability of atheism and its compatibility with ethics.
I would very much like to learn the considered views of others in the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle, as well as others both within and outside the local secularist communities, about this more general issue and how we can help develop in the culture at large a more intelligent and rational approach to moral values that is based on the recognition of individual responsibility, and on the recognition of the fallacy of collective responsibility.
James Coley says
Another relevant article:
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/02/13/3623040/matter-suspected-north-carolina-shooter-atheist/
R-von says
Perhaps if the educational system included a comprehensive study of religions (belief systems) to help young people understand that all points of view have some validity and that religious preference should be a personal choice as is any other life-style decision.
Unfortunately, the only religious training that young people receive is indoctrination by whatever religion their parents have chosen for them. Consequently, the young grow into adults with either a very biased perception of religion or no interest in it at all.
The result is large numbers of people who distrust or even hate anyone with a different set of religious beliefs. However, I do not believe that the actions or Mr Hicks had anything to do with his anti-religious beliefs since a true Atheist spends more time thinking about the issue than taking action against any particular religion. There is nothing in Atheist literature that encourages anyone to seek revenge.
I think his problem was with anger, fascination with violence and protection of his turf; all of which are common if one is influenced by what is offered as ‘entertainment’ in our culture. So if we are still looking for something to blame, consider TV, action movies, extreme sports and music based on negative emotions; i.e., the entertainment industry. Certainly not Atheism which requires logical, rational thinking.
James Coley says
Another relevant article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/13/no-atheism-does-not-need-a-moment-of-reckoning/
Jeff B. says
For being a PhD in Sociology at Harvard, the author of this sloppy op-ed sure lacks in “doing his homework”.
—“In their zeal to take potshots at the faithful, New Atheists have indeed forgotten that atheism needs to not only puncture myth, but to supply comfort, guidance, and joy.”—
A simple Google search would reveal several ways in which New Atheists have endeavored for the latter. For example, Sam Harris has written two books — The Moral Landscape and (the recently published) Waking Up — that offer positive visions of ethics and happiness. And what about Richard Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God? (I admit I haven’t read any of these, but it’s not hard to see their purpose.)
James Coley says
Even NPR has piled on against atheists.
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/15/386406810/some-see-extreme-anti-theism-as-motive-in-n-c-killings
It is appalling to see a supposedly intellectually reputable outlet of news and information like NPR pile on in this absurd association of the tragic triple murder in Chapel Hill with atheism, just because of the coincidental fact that the deranged killer, Craig Hicks, was – like a lot of people these days – an atheist.
In the first place, there is as yet no evidence that this was a hate crime against the religion of Islam. I sympathize with the father of the two slain sisters, who may find it necessary to give his grief meaning, if only a tragic meaning, by assuming that this was an attack on his religion.
But the facts are that neighbors identified Hicks as an individual displaying “equal opportunity” anger who made everyone feel uncomfortable and unsafe. He seems to be a deranged man who felt powerless, and saw guns as a way to regain respect.
Secondly, there is no faction of the new movements for atheism and anti-theism that advocates violence. The same can not be said of the Muslim world. Anti-theism is not a violent movement, simply a philosophical view according to which the concept of God does more harm than good for humanity.
The NPR report quotes Reza Aslan as saying that anti-theism is “more than just sort of a refusal to believe in gods or spirituality; it’s a sometimes virulent opposition to the very concept of belief.”
Note that by characterizing this as a “refusal” Aslan appears to be suggesting that believing there are no gods is shirking a responsibility. In fact, it is accepting the responsibilities of rationalism. Also note that he frames it as opposition to “belief.” Atheists believe in many things, including Humanism and non-violence. This is all part of the usual caricature of atheism and anti-theism that pervades media and culture.
We should be able to expect more of NPR than to tag along with such parodies. Intellectual integrity demands that we look at these tragic murders objectively, and not as opportunities to demonize philosophical views that in no way advocate or condone violence. NPR has failed.
James Coley says
Jerry Coyne’s take on the NPR story:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/npr-jumps-the-shark-on-atheism-and-the-north-carolina-murders-presents-reza-aslan-as-their-only-expert
James Coley says
Update: I posted this identical text to the NPR site and I have found that it has been removed! If this was censorship, it is just another example of why it is ridiculous to consider NPR genuinely liberal broadcasting.
R-von says
James;
RE: Your comment about NPR deleting your post about their biased reporting: I realized a long time ago that NPR really stands for “National Propaganda Radio”. Their programming consists of trite human interest stories, “in-depth’ news reports that have been cleared for release by some ‘over-sight’ group that makes sure there is nothing offensive (from the government’s point of view) and plenty of 10 second plugs for their supporters – which negates the concept of commercial-free radio. All of the supporters they mention are commercial enterprises.
True, some of the stories are interesting but there is absolutely no in-depth investigative reporting, unless it is about some event in another country. Even at that, the events are reported in sync with the official government line and never revealing our role in manipulating events to suit our national security interests. Their reporting of the events in the Ukraine is a good example of biased reporting.
There are very few reliable, independent news outlets, especially now that the discrediting of Brian Williams and the death of his 3 associates (plus the mysterious death of Michael Hastings) has effectively put all journalists on notice that they should only report the official version of the news.
Name Withheld says
People have the ability to tell the truth, to shade the truth and to lie. When anyone says what they believe, one must always wait a while and see what their behavior indicates about the truth of their words. If a Christian (and the multitudes of sub-beliefs under this diverse system) or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Zoroastrian or a humanist – or an “atheist,” who supposedly eschews belief that any of these beliefs are about a “god” – speaks hatefully about others on this planet, their belief must be questioned. If any of these or other beliefs are cited by a person who then kills another person, their belief must be questioned. Once hate enters the equation, fear is usually (if not always) the motivator. Once violence enters the equation, whatever beliefs were cited by an individual must be suspect. Once murder occurs, the person is a criminal. It doesn’t matter if one person or multitudes of people are murdered, the person or persons responsible are criminals. The greatest mass murders on this planet have occurred by governments and corporations, who state that they are motivated by their beliefs that they are acting for the good of their population (or a portion of their population more accurately). Sometimes, “god” is cited as the motivation – protecting “god” from disbelievers or protecting the “house(s) of god” from those who are characterized as wanting to do harm to those institutions.
This guy said he did not believe in “god.” Whatever. Fear that he was not in control motivated him to kill his neighbors. Fear motivated him to act angrily towards other neighbors and others in the community. He was afraid of something, who knows what. Who knows whether he will ever be able to tell us – in a completely truthful way – what made him so fearful.
He, though, is an unreliable narrator. What he says has zero relevance to the actions he took. He is a criminal. He has acted against we, the human population of this earth. His act was rendered and tells us all we need to know about his beliefs. Why did he kill these three and leave the rest of his neighbors, who it is said he also mistreated? It is difficult to divorce his choice from their superficial differences from him. It was definitely a “hate crime.” But if hate is driven by fear, aren’t all crimes hate crimes?
angad singh says
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire/
Not to be outdone, Richard Dawkins has called Islam “the greatest force for evil today” (in the same breath, rather amusingly, as admitting he’s never bothered to read the Koran). At other times Dawkins has been even more vulgar, tweeting: “For me, the horror of Hitler is matched by bafflement at the ovine stupidity of his followers. Increasingly feel the same about Islamism” and inferring that then-New Statesman columnist Mehdi Hassan is unqualified to be a journalist because he is also a Muslim. Or, to take yet another example, “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”
James Coley says
Angad: Let’s look at your quote from Dawkins in which he makes a comparison to the horrors under Hitler. He said that he increasingly feels “the same about Islamism.” Is it not significant that he was careful to say “Islamism” and not “Islam?” Dawkins does not believe that everyone who subscribes to some form of Islam is a terrorist. He is against Islamism, the doctrine that Islam must be imposed on the world. Do think he is against all Muslims?
James Coley says
Here is another relevant article:
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/02/dont-even-think-about-it-oh-wait-too-late/
James Coley says
But here, on the same Web site, is an example of another thing I wrote about in this post, the sexist practice of holding men collectively responsible.
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/dear-men-everywhere-women-scared-us/
R-von says
Those who ask for an apology from Maher and Dawkins for the murders of the three Muslim students should also ask for an apology from the National Rifle Assn for condoning the possession of firearms. How many weapons did Hicks own in addition to the sidearm he carried? Did he have a permit for it? I think those questions are more relevant than what he wrote on his Facebook page.
And who in the psychiatric treatment community should be held responsible for not recognizing Hicks as a potentially dangerous person? Did he have a history of threatening people?
It seems all the focus is on his anti-religious stance, nothing about his mental state.
Randy Best says
I am deeply saddened by the recent murder of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill. Violence is never appropriate and only perpetuates our current culture of violence. I grieve for the loss of such inspiring young people poised to do humanitarian work helping refugees in Turkey. They are in my thoughts. I also struggle to find compassion for the man who shot them for I believe that everyone counts.
Randy Best
Chris Kaman says
I want their names to be listed on our website as we mourn the senseless killing of these three young people:
Deah Shaddy, Barakat and Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha.
James Coley says
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121036/chapel-hill-muslim-murders-show-atheism-has-violent-extremists-too
Here we have just the sort of pseudo-intellectual attack on atheism in the wake of this tragedy that I anticipated. Here is an excerpt from the article.
“[T]his is a persistent problem with the New Atheist movement: Because it is more critical of religion than introspective about its own moral commitments, it assumes there is broad agreement about what constitutes decency, common sense, and reason. Yet in doing so, New Atheism tends to simply baptize the opinions of young, educated white men as the obviously rational approach to complicated socio-political problems. Thus prejudice in its own ranks goes unnoticed.”
It would take a long time to fully unpack what is so seriously wrong with just this short passage. I can only touch on a few points.
Ethical Culture and Humanism is certainly more introspective about its own moral commitments that it is critical of religion.
And, even in the New Atheist authors themselves have paid more attention to religion than to ethics, there is no assumption on the part of, for example, Richard Dawkins, that there is broad agreement to his values simply because he prescribes them.
Finally, the author manages to commit a blatant fallacy in assuming that, since a lot of atheists are white men, our values must represent prejudices based on race and gender.
It is very disappointing to see such poor reasoning in a New Republic article.
angad singh says
Can not agree with your assessment of the two remaining angry atheists because it does not stand up to analysis. I have posted a link from Jacobin for any that may wish to read up quick on issues with their work.
For a better understanding of atheists and anti theists I would refer those that wish to truly understand the issue to Karen Armstrong – luckily a lot of what she’s said can be watched in a YouTube Videos as well.
Timothy Travis says
I am a little slow sometimes. I don’t get the distinction between “what is right” and “what is wrong” vs “who is right” and “who is wrong”.
If a group, the KKK for example, espouses a doctrine that is wrong and if a member of that group then acts on that doctrine, don’t members of the group have some responsibility? Don’t Catholics bare responsibility for the actions of the leaders they support? Don’t all Americans, even those who opposed it, have some degree of culpability for the invasion of Iraq? Or are you saying something different?
In the case of the “atheist” killing Muslims, is there an atheist group that encourages that action? If so, seems to me, each member of that groups bares responsibility for that anti-social belief. That the killer is an atheist, is there anything to indicate that had anything to do with the killing? And is he an atheist, -who says? Might he just not have any religious affiliation, -a none?
James Coley says
I believe that thinking about ethics has to start with attention to different kinds of actions in relevant circumstances. That is, the fundamental questions in ethics are about what (action) is right and what is wrong. If someone does something wrong, we may then say they are wrong to have done it. But sometimes this is done the other way around: first we identify an “us” and a “them’ and whatever we do is right, and whatever they do is wrong. We must reject this approach, I am saying, as Humanists. We are all in this together, as you have said with eloquent directness.
It is a related but somewhat different point about individual and collective responsibility. Unless they assume a position in an organization that entails it, as in Japanese corporations where the CEO resigns if others commit serious crimes, no one, in my view, is ever reponsible for something that they have not done.
Someone in the KKK has some individual responsibility for violence if they approved of it and supported it. But in other examples you cited, the situation is, in my view, quite different.
So, for example: the invasion of Iraq. I protested against it and bear absolutley no responsibility for it simply because I am a citizen of the United States. If I could’ve stopped it, I would’ve.
Timothy Travis says
James, you wrote regarding “the invasion of Iraq. I protested against it and bear absolutley no responsibility for it simply because I am a citizen of the United States. If I could’ve stopped it, I would’ve.”
I was vocal against the invasion of Iraq. I am shamed as an American for our stupid and disastrous action. The fact that I am shamed, in my mind, shows that I feel some responsibility. I am also shamed that the “Fourth Estate”, our media, let themselves be bullied into going along.
James Coley says
You have nothing to be ashamed of. You were vocal against this immoral invasion, and you bear no responsibility for it.
Those of us who protested said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we were right.
Those of us who protested said that, yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but the invasion would bring on something worse, and now we have ISIS. We were right.
Timothy Travis says
James, you also wrote, “Someone in the KKK has some individual responsibility for violence if they approved of it and supported it. But in other examples you cited, the situation is, in my view, quite different.”
I think you would agree that if the Saudi royal family helped bankroll the 9/11 terrorists, they share responsibility.
Its a matter of degree.
In my mind, the Catholic who gives money to the RCC shares in the actions of its leaders even if he chooses to be unaware, turn a blind eye.
James Coley says
I agree that it is a matter of degree.
James Coley says
A related article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-killings-shine-light-on-particular-tensions-between-islam-and-atheism/
R-von says
Unfortunately, we do not liver in a world where rational thinking dominates the masses. We all know that there are many people who are just looking for an excuse to attack and condemn non-believers on the premise that without a belief in God, how can you have any morals?
If Mr. Hicks was a Bible-Banging Baptist who loved guns and hated Muslims, would there also be a backlash against the NRA and the Southern Baptists?
Of course, it could be that this really is an episode created by a dispute over parking spaces in an overcrowded community and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s religious views. After all, it is the media who is pushing that aspect of the story, not the Police.
James Coley says
Sure enough! Here’s a report about some people on social media blaming this on atheists.
James Coley says
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/chapel-hill-shootings-atheist/
Gretchen Niver says
The fact that the man was in the habit of brandishing a gun is a lot more apropos to the violent event than what he did or didn’t believe, but we won’t hear anything about that.
Chris Kaman says
I could not agree with you more, James. It seems to me that those who wish to pursue the “who is wrong” fallacy will eventually find a justification for violence. Indeed, the “who is wrong” fallacy always leads to violence. It’s the logical end of such thinking.