But this isn't about Haidt's article, but the hilarious responses which ensued from the New Atheists at whom the article was partly targeted. I thought I would give just one example, along with my comments..
(Really, is this guy really an adult, or junior member of a third-grade debate club? Why would any reasonably intelligent person pay even half their attention to the arguments of a person who's reasoning skills are so weak, circular and inconsistent?)
Here's Sam Harris:
Haidt concludes his essay with this happy blandishment: "every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing." Surely we can all agree about this. Our bets have been properly hedged (the ideology must be "longstanding" and need only have "some" wisdom). Even a "new atheist" must get off his high horse and drink from such pristine waters. Well, okay…
Anyone feeling nostalgic for the "wisdom" of the Aztecs? Rest assured, there's nothing like the superstitious murder of innocent men, women, and children to "suppress selfishness" and convey a shared sense of purpose. Of course, the Aztecs weren't the only culture to have discovered "human flourishing" at its most sanguinary and psychotic...
...What would Haidt have us think about these venerable traditions of pious ignorance and senseless butchery? Is there some wisdom in these cults of human sacrifice that we should now honor?
Okay, first I should explain a little more about the article, which will help you understand why this bit of nonsense tickled my funny-bone so.
Haidt says, in short, that the supposedly rational atheist's are committing the exact same error as the people they attack: starting from an emotional predisposition towards one world-view or other and reasoning backwards to justify the original intuition about the way the world works. He cites instances of this type of flawed reasoning in the writings of Harris, Dawkins and Dennett.
Which is why it's so funny when Harris proceeds to exhibit the exact same flawed techniques of argument in his rebuttal of Haidt's article.
Here Harris is simply asserting that the human sacrificial rites of ancient cultures are inherently abominable, by which I mean he makes the assumption that everyone does or should find human sacrifice distasteful, while failing to give any reason why.
Now, I have a very simple reason for not liking human sacrifice. My God said it's wrong. That's certainly not a logical argument, but then, I'm not claiming it to be.
Harris, on the other hand, is jumping to the conclusion that sacrifice is inherently wrong (and everyone else should think just like him on the matter) simply because he finds it distasteful, not taking into account that this is simply the result of him growing up in a (Christian) culture which frowns upon human sacrifice. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of a God who frowns on human sacrifice coming to Earth in human form to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity.)
Does it ever occur to him that the people performing such sacrifices don't find them to be inherently wrong? If there is no higher omniscient intelligence capable of judging between the two views, what precisely makes Harris's views on human sacrifice any more valid than those of the Aztecs?
In reality, what Harris is doing is setting himself up in the place of God. The Aztecs are wrong, he is right, and for no other reason than that he is the one who had the thought. How pathologically egotistical is it to assume that the unfeeling universe cares about whatever Sam Harris happens to find distasteful on any given day?
I suppose if Sam were to change his view on human sacrifice the universe would turn itself inside-out.
Any two year old child could run rings around Harris in debate by employing one simple word: Why?
-------------------------
RK: Mr. Harris, why, if there is no outside force to dictate our morality, is it inherently wrong to kill innocent people?
SH: Well, um, because it's not beneficial to survival in our culture.
RK: Well, aside from the question of who's responsible for our particular culture's aversion to could-blooded murder (hmm, what group would that be?) let's assume we live in a culture where's it's not only acceptable, but particularly beneficial to survival. There are limited examples of this in history, not to mention numerous examples of this in the animal kingdom. You make the claim we are nothing more than particularly advanced animals. Why, in this context, is it wrong to murder?
SH:......
------------------------------
Well, if you really need a reason, how 'bout "Because Sam-fucking-Harris says so!"? Now if we could only get him to reveal what his nine other "Things I don't like, therefore nobody should do, the great gas-bag has spoken" we could get him to carve those fuckers in stone for us. Then we'd really have a utopia on our hands, right folks?
What a fucking lightweight. Shhhh, Sam, the adults are talking.
No comments:
Post a Comment