How a respected Darwinian atheist replies to a reasonable question

After I found out that “David Hume,” with whom I had an exchange at Secular Right yesterday (also discussed here), is Razib Khan of Gene Expression, I went over to that site to take a look at it. The first entry I saw began like this:

A few years ago there was a survey of Creationism among medical doctors. The short of is that though medical doctors are not as Creationist as the general public, a large minority are Creationists.

Now obviously the medical doctors being surveyed are not creationists in the sense of believing in the literal account of Genesis and a 5,000 year old earth. Razib is using the word “creationism” to refer generically to people who believe in God. The usage struck me as odd and wrong, and made me realize that I had seen the same misuse frequently in the recent past at Darwinian and atheist websites. So I posted a comment about it:

Lawrence Auster

I notice that at this website the word creationist is used to mean anyone who believes in God.

Since the word creationism appeared, it has always meant belief in the literal biblical account of the creation, creation in seven days, and belief that the earth is around 5,000 years old.

But now, according to Razib, all people who believe in God (or even all people who believe that there is a reality beyond matter) are creationists. This eliminates the distinction between creationists, properly defined, and religious believers who accept the age of the earth and who think that life came out of God, but don’t claim to have a theory as to how this happened. Which, by the way, even the materialist scientists don’t have. No one knows how life began. Repeat: no one knows how life began. Also, no one knows how the universe began. Also, no one knows how consciousness began. Given that no one knows the origin of the most basic facts of the universe, some modesty before the mystery of existence is in order.

Indeed, such modesty is beginning to appear even among the Darwinians. As stated in a New York Times article by Carol Yoon on February 9 (discussed and quoted by me here), the Darwinians admit they don’t know how species began. The upshot is that both the materialist scientists don’t know how life began, and even some admit that they don’t know how it evolved, and many religious believers make no claim to knowing how exactly life began and how it evolved.

Creationists, by contrast, do claim to know how life began and how all species came into existence: they were all created by God in their present form. There has been no gradual appearance of new life forms on earth over hundreds of millions of years.

My point is that the application of the word creationist to all theists is highly mischievous, meant to disparage all theists by putting them on the intellectual level of those who believe in a 5,000 year old earth in which all species were created in their present form.

Why does a website devoted to science use words in such an improper, tendentious, and misleading fashion?

There were a couple of brief replies to me that didn’t say anything useful, and then Razib posted this:

razib

please people: DO NOT FEED THE AUSTER!

So this is the way a well known Darwinist/materialist responds to a critical point. Not to answer it, not to explain or defend his own position, but to warn people away from me as though I were a ravenous beast.

Razib thus underscores a disturbing thought that’s been in my mind lately, that these new-line atheists talk about theists the same way that anti-Semites talk about Jews: not as fellow citizens with whom they disagree, and not even as fellow human beings whom they dislike, but as Untermenschen, as The Enemy. For example, at the Secular Right thread they routinely refer to those who doubt Darwinism, including highly rational, intellectual persons such as Alan Roebuck and Kristor, as “pre-rationals,” as people lacking reason, as people who are not fully human, as people so thoroughly Other that no communication is possible with them, and no consideration is due to them. (Not that this is the only way the atheists reply to people on the other side of the debate, but it’s a steady drumbeat.) Taking John Lennon’s “Imagine” seriously, the atheists want a world purged of religion and religious believers. Thus a commenter at Secular Right says his ideal is for all the atheists to leave the earth for new planets, so that he will never have to deal with religion again. But since such an escape is beyond their ability, the atheists, if they are to have the kind of world they want, must make theists disappear from this world. Of course that’s also beyond their ability, at least at present. But they express their deep desire for such a world by using language that dehumanizes theists, or at least removes them from humanity as the atheists understand it.

This unrestrained atheist bigotry against people who believe in God is a new and alarming phenomenon, and people should be aware of it.

Let us also remember that Razib is a partner with the respected conservative journalist Heather Mac Donald at Secular Right, where he oversees and polices her blog . The five contributors are:

* Heather Mac Donald
* Walter Olson
* John Derbyshire (“Bradlaugh”)
* Razib Khan (“David Hume”)
* Andrew Stuttaford

I should add that Razib (David Hume) ended his exchange with me at Secular Right yesterday with the sign-off, “Best, DH.” That gave me the impression he respected me and might be open to reasoned debate with me. Clearly I was wrong.

- end of initial entry -

February 21

Gintas writes:

Interesting comparison with anti-Semitism. We are “pre-rationalists.” Isn’t the ultimate reason to dehumanize someone to prepare to get rid of him? Even if they don’t consciously think of getting rid of us, how long before Daniel Dare realizes he can’t get away from us and the only option is to get rid of us?

But how different is this from the Communists in Russia? They turned the churches into museums and scoured the land of believers and faith. It was all going to be scientific and rational.

Ben W. writes:

BTW it isn’t accidental that Razib Khan aliases himself as David Hume. Not only was Hume anti-religion in his philosophy and epistemology but he was Darwin’s favorite philosopher. Darwin’s notes are filled with direct references to Hume, by name and quotation. Interesting that a so-called “biologist” or “scientist” (and Darwin was neither by accreditation), would refer in his “scientific” notes to Hume. Doesn’t strike me that Darwin is entirely values-free when he resorts to Hume for his theory of knowledge and sensations …

Hannon writes:

“This unrestrained atheist bigotry against people who believe in God is a new and alarming phenomenon, and people should be aware of it.”

Well, if I wasn’t before, I am aware of it now! The exchange with D. Dare has softened in tone with some back-and-forth after I responded rather darkly to one of his posts. He seems to be earnest.

As Kristor says, the benefit is really for the reader rather than the writer. I wonder if more than one or two people are following this interminable thing by now.

Hannon continues:

I thought you might enjoy this post of mine on the Secular Right thread. I must say I have enjoyed writing there overall, as it has helped formulate my thinking.

I suppose I did (inadvertently) draw out Dare’s weird space thinking, but now that I think of it he drew from me quite a lot that was I think largely as a result of his not nitpicking everything I said. Many bloggers do this as you know, and he simply chose to skip over points that would have sent someone else into attack mode.

Even if one’s respondent is a bitter philosophical enemy, civil conversation makes the effort worthwhile. Here I am telling you this!

Alan Roebuck writes:

Here’s my latest, short and sweet. The noose tightens.

Kevembuangga [after he used grossly insulting language],

Since you are not capable of rational discourse, I hereby terminate all discussion with you. You may continue your monologue.

To the others who doubt that consciousness is non-material:

If consciousness is material, how is it measured? What is its unit of measurement?

Also, being unable to give a mechanism for how mind interacts with matter, or fully to explain other mysteries, is not necessary in order to know that consciousness is non-material. Regardless of how these mysteries are resolved, if they are resolved, consciousness remains obviously non-material.

You need to change your minds, and stop denying the obvious. This is also for your own goods.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 20, 2009 05:20 PM | Send