Brian Marron | Contributing Writer
Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins make up the “Four Horsemen of the non-Apocalypse”. Trinity students have enthusiastically embraced their religion, New Atheism, which has but one commandment: don’t simply tolerate the harmful ideas of others, but ruthlessly counter, criticize and expose them using reason and rational argument. While I agree that harmful ideas such as homophobia and racism should be subjected to rigorous argumentation, I do not believe it is enough.
There is only so much to be achieved by criticising the opinions of others. It’s too easy. Every uppity atheist in Trinity can do it. If we are ever to avoid group-thinking our way through future atrocities, and only retrospectively seeing the error of our ways, we must go one step further than mere critical thinking. Be tough on others’ opinions, so long as you are even tougher on your own.
Trinity students have enthusiastically embraced their religion, New Atheism, which has but one commandment: don’t simply tolerate the harmful ideas of others, but ruthlessly counter, criticize and expose them using reason and rational argument.
Throughout our shaky history, what society deemed to be moral has been subverted by irrational, inconsistent thought processes. We cringe at the thought of centuries spent selling Africans into slavery. We lower our face into our hands thinking of the murderous Third Reich. We shake in frustration at the rape and plunder of Irish dignity by the Catholic Church. Too few people questioned, and even fewer acted against the prevailing moral atmosphere; this is where evil triumphs. The tragedy is how clearly misguided the judgement of our compliant forefathers was. Nonetheless, we begrudgingly accept Nuremburg-esque defences from history’s guilty masses.
“More Nazis should have studied Arts degrees…” the uppity atheist mutters to himself: “A bit more critical thinking would have stopped them.” As the uppity atheists rightly point out, we have successfully used Reason to conclude that there are no logical arguments to justify the bloody mistreatment of some people. Historically though, each moral breakthrough, each time humanity bequeathed rights unto another race, gender, or sexual persuasion, our moral consciousness remained blind to another group.
Sadly, contrary to what the Four Horsemen believe, no amount of militant atheism, critical thinking, or berating one’s slightly xenophobic granny could have prevented the horrors of human history. To those relatively sane people who abolished slavery in 1833, the idea of ending institutional racism in the southern US would have been absolutely laughable. Even the voice of reason that called for the legalisation of homosexuality 1993 concluded gay marriage would be a bridge too far. It seems we are limited to only expanding our moral circle when a generation dies. As a result, only our children can recognise the flaws in our collective thinking. In this modern era, where Reason supposedly reigns supreme over irrational dogmas, it is tempting to think we have finally overcome the logical obstacles and dangers of subscribing to conventional wisdom. Some like to point to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as evidence that as a species, we have tamed our once barbaric, thoughtless ways. Admittedly, the Declaration encapsulates so well our innate human decency. Alas, it represents even better of the folly of human conceits.
It seems we are limited to only expanding our moral circle when a generation dies. As a result, only our children can recognise the flaws in our collective thinking.
It was dangerous in 1833, 1993, and it remains dangerous now to think that the list of rights is complete. Although the prevailing moral climate is comparatively benign, we must resist the passiveness and arrogance that contributed to the compliance of previous generations. By understanding the pattern of our moral development, we recognise we probably have moral blind spots which we have yet to acknowledge. If we acknowledge that, we can take steps to prevent history from repeating itself. We must actively hunt out our moral blind spots. The New Atheists would have you think critically to overcome evil but I advocate you do something else. If we are to successfully hound out our moral blind spots, we must think freely. Freethought liberates you from the intellectually limiting effects of authority, conventional wisdom, popular culture and all other dogmas.
In order to unshackle yourself, it is worth bearing in mind a useful rule thumb. It was devised by philosopher William Kingdon Clifford and it goes like this: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” By way of example, “I hate gay people” is a rather difficult position to defend considering the paucity of good reasons to justify the harm it causes. The same is true in cases of racism, sexism, and other prejudices, the application of freethought dictates you concede there is not sufficient evidence to support them.
In many areas of life we have torn down the dogmas once used to justify the torturous pain and suffering inflicted on millions. But there are still areas of life we choose not to implement this. That is by enslaving, castrating, and filleting the sentient animals one eats and wears. This article is not going to pick apart every argument against speciesism. That intellectual heavy lifting can be left to moral philosophers like Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Carl Sagan. Suffice to say, when any argument against speciesism is placed under the microscope, when one thinks freely and strips away the dogmas of tradition, culture, and conventional wisdom, one cannot find evidence to justify the [mis] use of animals in the ways we do.
By understanding the pattern of our moral development, we recognise we probably have moral blind spots which we have yet to acknowledge. If we acknowledge that, we can take steps to prevent history from repeating itself.
Fortunately, any rational person has the opportunity reclaim his or her rationality. Those bastions of critical thought, Hitchens, Harris, Dakins and Dennett were granted that opportunity, have been made aware of the arguments against the destruction and harm entailed in eating meat. They conceded that what happens in the abbitoire is not justifiable. Nonetheless they publicly scoffed even partial veganism or vegetarianism, citing limp reasons such as a lack of “social courage” in the case of Dawkins, or that it was “hard” for Harris to get enough protein.
To know what you believe to be right and not to act on it because it is socially, economically or otherwise inconvenient is, by definition, cowardly. Those excuses are very ones that make us shift in our seat when it comes from the mouths of millions compliant Germans, slave traders, and priests. The Horsemen dedicate careers to exposing the arbitrary distinctions of race, gender, and sexual persuasion, and they decide to draw the line at species. Yet their arguments for doing so are unsatisfactory. Evidently, such hypocrisy is lost on them. If you hold the New Atheists as idols, perhaps indulging in Youtube marathons of Hitch-slaps, or even Hitch-slapping unsuspecting religious people yourself, please consider taking your own penchant for critical thought one step further than Dawkins, Harris and company: have the courage and integrity to think freely and act accordingly.
A famous bon mot asserts that opinions are like arseholes, in that everybody has one. I am inclined to agree, but I also agree with Tim Minchin when he added, “opinions differ significantly from arseholes, in that yours should be thoroughly and constantly examined”. If you must, be hard on the opinions of others, so long as you be even harder on your own. We must be stronger than our compliant forefathers and stronger than that bunch of jumped up atheists with publishing deals. We must go that step further, diligently seek out our moral blind spots, and become active participants in creating a humane and just world.
Photo by Wade M
