Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 14, 2012 in Uncategorized Posts | 24 comments

Atheism and the Class Problem Revisited, by David Hoelscher

 

I want to briefly follow up on a recently published article of mine about atheism and economic justice. Doing so makes good sense, I think, because the piece is long, research-based, and addresses an unduly neglected topic. I’ll get to the article presently, but first let’s start with a little exercise. Here is a selective list of some of our national political parties: the Democratic Party, the National Atheist Party (NAP), the Green Party, and the Republican Party. Now, here are four numbers: 02, 17, 38, and 78. Each number represents the number of references to poverty and economic inequality within a particular official 2012 party platform. (Numbers were gathered by counting occurrences of the following terms: poverty, poor, living wage, homeless, and income or wealth inequality/gap/disparity/distribution.) Your task: match the political party with the correct number. [Read More Below]

Because I’ve raised this subject in this particular forum, you’re probably thinking that I aim to point out that the NAP matches up with either the highest number above or with the lowest. Furthermore, if you think the problems of poverty and inequality are issues any political party ought to emphasize, you’re expecting the coming news about the NAP to be either pleasing or disappointing. As it turns out these suppositions are correct. So, which is it? Is the NAP in the vanguard of the struggle for economic justice, or must we acknowledge that, where that struggle is concerned, the party is more or less missing in action? Well, concerning the major parties the numbers are 38 for the Democrats and 17 for the GOP. The Green party tally is 78. Alas, the lowly number 02 belongs to the NAP. (Because the Democratic and Green platforms address poverty and inequality in myriad, often indirect ways, the total numbers for those two parties, especially for the Greens, would actually be somewhat higher than what I have reported here. My attempt to go beyond the aforementioned basic keywords in my search quickly triggered the law of diminishing returns: because doing so would not have altered the pattern of results in any meaningful way, collecting more data would not have been worth the required time or effort.)

Obviously, the NAP does not come out well here. In fact it is in the same league as the Libertarian Party, an anti-social justice organization if ever there was one, which managed to include in its platform just one statement concerning poverty or inequality. As the celebrated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., correctly noted in a 1989 speech “the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights … [including] acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation and oppression.” Looking at the NAP platform, one might be forgiven for wondering whether, on this score, a future great secular age would bring about much improvement.

This is the sort of thing that prompted me to write “Atheism and the Class Problem,” published at Counterpunch on 07 November (and later reprinted in The Beast). Being new to the world of atheism-themed writing, I was not quite sure what kind of reaction to expect. The only thing that seemed predictable was that it would be interesting.
And indeed it has been. I’ve been very pleased, although somewhat surprised, that the article has been well received by nearly everyone who has contacted me about it. The single exception was the middle-aged Jewish woman whose grandfather was a famous Catholic Marxist writer. In a polite and thoughtful letter to me, she argues for the validity of faith and for what she sees as some of the historical civilizing influences of Christianity and Judaism.

I want to share three of the responses I have received from atheists. They are of special interest because, in different ways, they affirm the point I tried to make in this paragraph: “The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty.” So wrote Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian left-wing radical and philosopher. This may be about as good a succinct account of why God is a problematic notion as anyone has ever offered. Most people familiar with the atheist movement would probably agree that, concerning the advance of human reason, skeptics are making some good headway. On the justice front, however, can there be any doubt that something is terribly amiss? When we look at our thoughts and our actions related to poverty and economic oppression do they not mostly reflect the values of the wider society rather than courageously challenge them?

Although she thought my article ought to have included a discussion of “the towering role racial politics and American apartheid play in shaping ‘New Atheist/Atheist plus’ rhetoric,” Sikivu Hutchinson, author of Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars, sent me a message that begins “A probing analysis and good skewering of social justice dilettantes in the atheist movement.”

Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry magazine, wrote:

Fascinating article. In one [of] my stump talks (on the demographics of unbelief) I focus heavily on the Inglehart/Norris existential security hypothesis, buttressed by some supporting info collected by Phil Zuckerman and Gregory Paul. Secularist audiences take it in, nod eagerly, and all too often look at me blankly when I suggest that this might indicate a preferred direction for political action. Who says atheists can’t compartmentalize too?

And Steve Ahlquist, artist and activist, sent this moving letter:

I wanted to write and tell you what your recent piece, Atheism and the Class Problem, has meant to me. I have been involved with humanist activism here in Rhode Island for quite some time, and was frankly surprised by the lukewarm reception some of my groups activism has received by the national groups. When we helped to remove a prayer from the wall of a high school, we were lauded, but when we came out in support of Occupy or helped to counter-protest pro-lifers outside of abortion clinics we were ignored. When I comment on church-state separation issues I am listened to but when I critique libertarians as being essentially anti-humanist I am given blank stares or worried looks, like I might be too radical for prime time. Reading your article helped me to realize that I am not crazy or alone. It also gave me some ideas as to how to better address my ideas to the public. – Thank you.

The common theme of these three quotations is fairly evident: where the problems of poverty and maldistribution are concerned, the atheist movement is nowhere near to being on the path that leads toward justice.

And then there are the bloggers. A half-dozen well-known atheist bloggers have written to me privately with reactions ranging from “very interesting” to “excellent.” That they’ve all kept their comments private strikes me as rather odd. I’m not sure what to make of it. Additionally, two bloggers who have enthusiastically identified with Atheism Plus, neither of whom received any criticism in my article, never replied after I sent each of them a message with the article link. I can’t help but wonder whether all this supports my thesis, namely that the problem of economic oppression just doesn’t appeal to large swaths of the atheist community.

A few bloggers have weighed in publicly. Because their responses have been quite thoughtful ones, the fact that these commentators don’t enjoy a high profile in the atheist blogosphere is a good reason for us to take advantage of this opportunity to promote what critical theorists of social justice call “participatory parity” by bringing them into the center of the current conversation. See Chris Burke’s “Course of Reason” post at CFI, Acilius’s “A Sensible Emptiness,” and Walker Bristol’s “Addressing the Class Question.”

As I write these words, I’m aware that today, 10 December, is Human Rights Day (HRD). Wikipedia explains the general significance of HRD with perfect succinctness: “The date was chosen to honor the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption and proclamation, on 10 December 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global enunciation of human rights and one of the first major achievements of the new United Nations.” As we consider the text of the UDHR, let us note that with its 46.2 million people below the official poverty line and its obscene levels of inequality, the United States is in gross violation of several UDHR provisions, including Articles

23.1: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

23.3: Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

25.1: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

and 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

On its website, the NAP avows that “We are for the people, by the people, and therefore incorporate the right to use the power of the people to restore equality to our Democracy using reasonable, rational and non-violent means.” I find both the populist bent and the humanistic vision of this statement very appealing. However given that, roughly speaking, one can only have political equality to the extent one enjoys general economic equality, it would be utterly unreasonable to expect that the former can be realized in the absence of the latter. We’d do well, I think, to take our cue from atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling: “[T]he great moral questions,” he writes “are those identified by the discourse of human rights: oppression, war, poverty, and the vast disparities between rich and poor” (What is Good?: The Search for the Best Way to Live, 2003, p. 70). And that perspective, if I may borrow the words of Tom Flynn, might indicate a preferred direction for political action.

———-
David Hoelscher has taught philosophy and history at various colleges in the U.S. as well as in Sri Lanka, where he has lived since summer 2011. In January, he will return to teaching at Southwestern Illinois College.

  • http://twitter.com/Eshto Ryan Grant Long

    Good stuff, thank you.

  • Dhoelscher

     Thank you, Ryan.

  • ThePrussian

    I’ll register my complaint simply: the underlying argument here is that you cannot be a “real” atheist unless you are a member of the left.  If so, include me out; that article starts with a quote by the man who was responsible for the enslavement of a third of mankind and a murder rate that dwarfs even the worst of practiced religion.  It then goes on to praise Noam Chomsky, the man who openly defends the mass murders of Mao and the Khmer Rouge.

    I’m happy to discuss problems such as gross poverty.  However, it strikes me that none of the parties listed are on the side that maintains those conditions.  Its an open secret that the trade barriers maintained by gangs like the US democratic party (“Them capitalists jes’ wanna ship yer jobs abroad!”) are instrumental in the immiseration of the world’s poorest.  Then we get the Green party, which does everything it can to block industrial development amongst the poorest of the poor.  

    If being a “real” atheist means going along with that, include me out.

  • Dhoelscher

    Your comment is so filled with distortions of other people’s positions that it’s downright irresponsible.

    “the underlying argument here is that you cannot be a ‘real’ atheist unless you are a member of the left.” I never argued any such thing. My CP argument is about what it takes to be an advocate for economic justice, largely framed with examples of what such advocacy does not look like in the context of the atheist movement. And yes, economic justice positions are mainly found on the far left, although, as I indicated in my original piece, enlightened leftism embraces various conservative positions.

    Karl Marx “was responsible for the enslavement of a third of mankind and a murder rate that dwarfs even the worst of practiced religion.” What an absurd charge. Marx is to blame for the ways in which other people perversely acted (in part) on his ideas long after he was dead? Marx advocated for peaceful revolution wherever that was possible. He did say that in order to gain power workers would have to use force in some countries (he had in mind such historical examples as the American Revolution), but he never advocated for the enslavement of anybody nor for mass murder. In fact, Marx, was one of the more passionate and outspoken of 19th century abolitionists.

     http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Tocqueville-Race-America-Democracy/dp/0739106783/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1355571894&sr=8-4&keywords=marx+slavery

    “Noam Chomsky, the man who openly defends the mass murders of Mao and the Khmer Rouge.” Where does he do that? I have his 1985 essay “Cambodia” right here in front of me. It contains no evidence for such a claim. You’ve made a positive assertion; the burden is on you to provide evidence.

    “the Green party … does everything it can to block industrial development amongst the poorest of the poor.” This claim is ridiculous. The GP is against eco-destructive industrial development. Your argument smacks of a classic birfucation fallacy: one is either for standard industrial development or one is insensitive to the plight of the poor. Utter nonsense. Apparently you are not familiar with the large literature, which comprises much of the inspiration for the worldviews of Green supporters, that points the way to ecologically-friendly development, aimed, among other things, at putting an end to poverty.

  • ThePrussian

    “the GP is against eco-destructive industrial development.” 

      Yes, such as power plants and electrical dams in Africa and elsewhere.  Or do you remember the biofuels debacle?  People literally starved to death because of the increase in corn price.  Or when Greenpeace blocked food aid to Africa when people were starving.

      “Where does he do that?”  

      I will refer you to both Nick Cohen’s book “What’s Left?” and Francis Wheen’s “How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the world” in which Chomsky’s defense of mass murder is well documented.  He also tried to defend the Serbian fascists:
    http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2596
      If it’d been up to the likes of Chomsky we would have in the heart of Europe, right now, following 9/11, 7/7, Breivik and all the rest of it, a national socialist state that kicked off by murdering all the Muslims in its borders.  And oh boy, wouldn’t that have been a load of fun.

    “ Marx is to blame for the ways in which other people perversely acted (in part) on his ideas ”  Yes, yes, I know the song: Marxism isn’t responsible for the mass-killing in _every_ place it’s been tried, Islam isn’t responsible for the genocides of East Timor and the Sudan, Catholicism has nothing to apologise for in its alliance with fascism and its record on child rape.  Skip it.  

  • Dhoelscher

    Greenpeace blocked food aid to Africa? Can you please be more specific?

    I can’t tell whether you mean to say the GP supported or opposed power plants and dams in Africa.

    Nick Cohen has no credibility as an moral analyst of the left. And why should I think he would, given that the egregious right-wing Hitchens loved Cohen’s book?

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-guardian/

    Wheen, who was a close friend of the warmongering Hitchens, was an early signer of “The Euston Manifesto,” a statement of opposition to the anti-Iraq-war movement. I’m supposed to trust anything he might say against Chomsky?

    “Skip it.” No, I will not.

  • Dhoelscher

    By the way, bringing up Chomsky in the way that you have constitutes a blatant red herring fallacy. Aside from noting that he’s against American imperialism and military aggression, I never said anything about his foreign policy views. Clearly my aim in discussing him was to voice my disagreement with him concerning the issue of whether we ought to actively confront religion.

    Therefore, I won’t address anything else you may choose to say about Chomsky’s views on foreign affairs.

  • ThePrussian

    So, let’s see now, from the bottom – one ad hominem, a second ad hominem, a third ad hominem (all three lies, by the way: neither Hitchens nor Cohen are right wing, and Cohen, say, has defended the rights of asylum seekers for decades.  And the fact that he and Hitchens were anti-Saddam Hussein when Chomsky and, presumably, yourself were pro-Saddam Hussein – see how easy this is? – doesn’t disqualify him in the slightest), and a statement of ignorance – this is skepticism?  And yes, I will send you a stack of sources on the cruelty and wickedness of the green movement.  Start here:

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7092651.ece

    http://www.thenewstoday.info/2008/02/11/greenpeace.backs.groups.opposing.coal.power.plant.html

    http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/2395 

    But I’m sure that that’s all just nasty right wing stuff and unacceptable thesame way only Jews complain about the Holocaust/anti-Semites critcise Israel/US imperialists are anti-communist blahblahblah   Chomsky has never found a movement of nihilistic violence and wickedness that he’s not liked, as long as it’s had an anti-Western side.  Whether it’s the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Milosevic or neo-Nazi “revisionist” historians, he’s down with that.

  • ThePrussian

    And you’ll find the stuff on Greenpeace’s war crimes – and blocking food aid is a war crime, look it up – in the Penn and Teller episode on GM crops.  But I’m sure evidence isn’t important if its provided by people with the “wrong” political motives. 

  • Dhoelscher

     Your arguments are truly bizarre. Neither of my articles mention Greenpeace. Why are you talking about it?

    Oh yea, now I remember: you’re given to throwing out red herrings. You want to smear the Green Party by making what are probably very dubious claims about Green Peace and evidently you’re hoping or assuming that no one will notice the rhetorical sleight of hand.

  • Dhoelscher

    There is a difference between accurately descriptive use of language and ad hominem. My words do not qualify as personal attack, because they refer ultimately to Hitchens’ positions and arguments. I haven’t noted that he was a lifelong drunk, or that he was an unctuous social climber, or that he was a man given to severe betrayal of his friends. In the context of this discussion those sorts of comments might be personal attacks, depending upon what point happens to be at issue at a given moment. His neoconservative pro-war foreign policy was without a doubt right-wing.

    “neither Hitchens nor Cohen are right wing” Ok, fine, I never said Cohen was right-wing.

    “he [Cohen] and Hitchens were anti-Saddam Hussein when Chomsky and, presumably, yourself were pro-Saddam Hussein”

    Wow. I can only infer you’re charging me with being Pro-Saddam because you (rightly) gather that I was against the Iraq war. I remarked earlier on your tendency to think in bifurcated terms; well, there you go again: I must be either pro-war or pro-Hussein. It’s enough, I think, for me to just say that that idea is ridiculous.

  • ThePrussian

    Your argument is “Nick Cohen took a position I disagree with, therefore he can’t possibly be right about anything else.  Don’t bother me with all his stuff.”  That is absolutely ad hominem.   

    I pointed out how that card can be played right back on you, but you’re not particularly given to looking at actual arguments or evidence (you don’t rebut a single charge against Chomsky, not even his fondness for the Serbian fascists).  Greenpeace is but a small part of the anti-reason, anti-human Green movement, so I mentioned it.  And you yourself said this: 
    “Apparently you are not familiar with the large literature, which comprises much of the inspiration for the worldviews of Green supporters, that points the way to ecologically-friendly development, aimed, among other things, at putting an end to poverty.”

      I recognize this attitude: “Why can’t those ungrateful natives just develop in an ecological friendly way?”  Well, here’s an newsflash: I was born in that part of the world and grew up there.  Its people are fed up with being bullied and shoved around – they aren’t interested in “developing” the way you think is “ecologically friendly”, they are interested in getting the hell out of poverty as quickly as possible.  And that means using all that coal, oil, gas and uranium under their soils and growing in exactly the same way that the first world did.  You know, the way that works.  More power to them.

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    Sorry, but it’s a matter of record that Chomsky promoted a grotesquely revisionist view of the Khmer Rouge for many years, and has spent many years since backpeddling on the issue when the crimes of the Khmer Rouge were established as clear historical fact. To this day, he attempts a really stupid game of Oppression Olympics in trying to play the crime of American bombing of Cambodia off against the crimes of the Khmer Rouges. He has also been on record defending Mao.

    I’ll point to an extremely well-documented source written by a Cambodia historian, and I’ll include Chomsky’s response, which doesn’t exactly acquit him very well:

    http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
    http://www.zcommunications.org/the-cambodia-industry-by-noam-chomsky
    http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/reply_to_chomsky.htm

    It’s a long debate, and I wish I had time to put together a more brief summary, but I think the record of Chomsky’s distortions in this regard are part of larger record of kneejerk defense of the political Left even in its most vile distortions, and really doesn’t speak well of the man at all.

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    As to the Euston Manifesto, sorry, but I think as a response to some very wrongheaded tendencies in the antiwar movement, it was right on the money, even if it did serve as cover for what was ultimately a misguided defense of the Iraq War. Also, more than a few signers of Euston were against the Iraq War, or soon came to be when the actual nature of how it was being conducted became apparent and how little positive it achieved beyond the overthrow of the vile Saddam Hussein regime. It is a distortion to call it a “warmongering” document. Or are you really going to stand by pro-Taliban, pro-Saddam Hussein elements that managed to use anti-war movement as cover. The utterly vile positions of groups like ANSWER in the USA or RESPECT in the UK are a matter of record.

  • Dhoelscher

    Do you want to discuss anything that’s actually related to my articles?

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    I can’t stand by that. Non-ecologically friendly development has had serious enough effects coming from the developed world, and will be the nail in the coffin of this planet if the developing world goes down the same path, unless you’re really going to stand by climate change denial and a whole bunch of other anti-environmental stuff that isn’t supported by the science.

    Of course, the sovereignty of developing countries must be recognized, as well their legitimate ambition to get the hell out of poverty, and the legitimacy of their doing whatever practices are current in the developed world. However, there is nothing illegitimate about doing everything we can to encourage this next phase of the world’s development to be more sustainable and environmentally benign than the previous one.

    Also, I think one really has to question the narrative that large scale, ecologically-destructive projects are in fact benefiting people on the ground in those countries. Quite often, they simply aren’t – they often benefit the interests of the powerful in the developing world at the expense of those directly affected by the project.

  • ThePrussian

    “However, there is nothing illegitimate about doing everything we can to encourage this next phase of the world’s development to be more sustainable and environmentally benign than the previous one.”

      I’d certainly agree with that – for example, I’m a big fan of carbon-capture technology (which may yet save our collective backsides), and I have no time whatsoever for what, say, Shell pulled in Nigeria.  

      My quarrel is that this sort of benign, soft-focus stuff in practice often means bullying and shoving the world’s poorest around.  As Philip Stott pointed out, “There is an environmental problem, and it’s called two billion people in poverty”.  I remember seeing some smarmy asshole’s poster “Green energy is the future for the developing world”.  If I ever get my hands on who put that together, he is going to eat it.  We can’t even get this crappy stuff working in the First world, and we want to foist it on the Third?

      I can see why you’d think differently, but rest assured that I’m fully on board with the scientific reality of AGW.  I’ve had quite a quarrel with other free marketeers about it.

  • http://twitter.com/BfloBEAST The Beast

    Hey, The Prussian, all it takes to be a “real” atheist is to not believe in gods. You don’t even need to arrive at your disbelief through reason, unfortunately, to be a “real” atheist. But you do need to exercise reason, rigorously, in all things to be a rational atheist. So while you are no doubt a “real” atheist, you’re far from being a rational one, as your comments demonstrate. 

    You’re precisely the highly embarrassing reason many in the atheist movement are seeking to move beyond mere godlessness towards an all-encompassing rationalism. Just thought you needed that clarification, though it’s likely a futile gesture, as you clearly live in the magical realm of politically motivated reasoning — and I won’t be responding to any of your further nonsense because that would obviously be an incredible waste of my time. 

    In short: You’ve done quite a bit here to finally prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that “real” atheists are just as prone to idiocy as everyone else. Your contribution to science has been noted. Congratulations. 

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    “You’re precisely the highly embarrassing reason many in the atheist movement are seeking to move beyond mere godlessness towards an all-encompassing rationalism

    The Prussian is the “embarrassing reason”? Way to personalize this *way* too much. That’s completely missing the “you said”/”you are” distinction, by a long shot.

    Of course, the funny thing is, much of this conversation is simply recapitulating the whole dynamic that gave birth to Atheismplus, and we all know what kind of “rationalism” *that* ended up as.

    I’m all for bringing a rationalist perspective to socio-political questions. But it’s damn important to not go down the rabbit hole A+ went down and try and make “all-encompassing rationalism” simply a “rationalist” cover for a blanket embrace of some ideology or another.

    BTW, Greta Christina did a really good essay on the subject, right before basically going off the deep end and basically embracing the very “litmus tests” she decried:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/06/13/litmus-tests-skepticism-social-justice/

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    I’ve posted a direct response to your comments. You’re the one making a blanket defense of Chomsky, which invites a response. And *you* brought up Euston Manifesto, not me.

    I’m really unclear on where you’re coming from more generally. You say, like the Aplussers, that atheism should take on “social justice” questions. That part I’m OK with. But then, also like Aplussers, declare certain discussion *off limits*. That’s not OK *at all* from any authentically rationalist standpoint.

  • Dhoelscher

    I don’t know whether you’re being disingenuous or whether you’re just not paying attention. I never made a blanket defense of Chomsky. I said that Prussian (when he first leveled them) had not provided evidence to back up his charges against Chomsky. Moreover, before you decided to elaborate on the subject, I had already announced here that, because the whole issue of NC’s foreign policy critiques is a big red herring, I won’t be addressing any more comments on the matter.

    Quite clearly, I brought up the Euston Manifesto not because there’s any need for us to discuss it here, for no such need exists, but simply because a brief mention of it was relevant to a point I was making.

    “more than a few signers of Euston were against the Iraq War, or soon
    came to be when the actual nature of how it was being conducted became
    apparent and how little positive it achieved beyond the overthrow of
    the vile Saddam Hussein regime.”

    This statement actually works against your case. Most of the signers of the EM were too stupid, and/or too morally blunted, to see long before the war began that Bush and Blair were embarking on an evil project? And I’m supposed to care about their opinions about people who were truly against the war?

    I “declare certain discussion *off limits*.”
     
    That’s news to me. If you’re talking about my articles, I do no such thing. Even if you’re talking about this thread, I still do no such thing. I simply say that if a topic has nothing to do with my articles I’m not going to participate in any discussion about it. If you want to talk about irrelevant matters you’re perfectly free to do that.

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    Look, if you bring up subjects like Euston Manifesto, then they become a point of discussion, even if it isn’t something that was in the original article. A discussion isn’t closed just because you say it is.

    Oh, and I *signed* the Manifesto back in the day, because it was clear to me that some on the so-called “left” like George Galloway were defending some entirely “stupid and morally blunted” shit in the name of “anti-war”. In retrospect, I don’t think the “pro-war Left” was historically a good standpoint, but that doesn’t exactly clear anti-war people like Chomsky and Galloway of their errors, either.

  • Dhoelscher

    “Your argument is ‘Nick Cohen took a position I disagree with, therefore he can’t possibly be right about anything else. Don’t bother me with all his stuff.’ That is absolutely ad hominem.”

     Actually, I wrote this: Cohen “has no credibility as a moral analyst of the left.” This is hardly a poisoning of the well. In this universe anyway, what I wrote does not equal “he can’t possibly be right about anything else.”

    “you’re not particularly given to looking at actual arguments or evidence.”

    I’m confident that most people who read my articles, which contain 10,000 words of argument and evidence, and who then read through all these comments, will agree with me that that charge is as bizarre as it is absurd. You make it in the context of telling me I haven’t adequately addressed what you take to be Chomsky’s evil views on foreign affairs, a subject I already told you I will not address because it has no direct relevance to the arguments I make in my essays.

    Now I’m scratching my head, Prussian. I just referred to my arguments. Surely I’m confused though. You say I don’t deal in arguments! Hmmm. It would seem that I’m losing touch with reality. Or maybe, just maybe, you are thoughtlessly out of control.

    “I recognize this attitude: ‘Why can’t those ungrateful natives just develop in an ecological friendly way?’”

    Maybe you’ve been reading too many anti-western, parochial, and small-minded rantings of people like the Indian writer Ramachandra Guha, who makes the argument that it would be wrong, because unfair, to expect that developing countries ought not to follow the fossil-fuel based pattern of industrialization taken by the countries of the so-called developed world. Never mind that that position requires that we all just accept the continuing and accelerating destruction of the biosphere. Never mind the fact that, as scientists have calculated,  development by the rest of the world’s countries on the western model of industrialization would require the resources of TWO MORE planets just like this one.

    You have intimate knowledge of a developing country? That makes two of us. For the past 17+ months I’ve been living in Sri Lanka, the place my wife is from and where these words are being written.

    Having been mostly absent from this forum for a day and a half or so, I’ve achieved some perspective I didn’t have earlier. Something was bothering me, and I wasn’t able to put my finger on it until this morning. I knew that what was troubling me had to do with the fact that even though your arguments are bad I was still willing to debate with you. Now that willingness is gone. I could put up with your arguments if they were the only problem with your stance toward me. Unfortunately, their is another problem.

    It goes back to your initial comment, which began like this: “I’ll register my complaint simply: the underlying argument here is that
    you cannot be a “real” atheist unless you are a member of the left.” As my response to that claim explained, and as anyone who reads my CP article can easily see, you were completely wrong. You went on in that first comment to make various fallacious and irrelevant points.

    Think about that for a minute. Here I am, a new contributor here, and it never occurred to you to say something like “welcome to Skeptic Ink Network.” Or, “I can’t say I agree with you about much of anything, but I’m impressed by your passionate interest in the problem of widespread poverty, which is almost always sorely neglected.” Or, “I don’t like your left-wing politics, but it must be acknowledged that your articles are powerfully argued and very well researched. They gave me some interesting things to think about.”

    But no. Nothing like any of that from you. And later, not even an apology for so grossly mischaracterizing the main point of my articles.

    The combination of the overly-aggressive impolite stance you’ve taken and your bad arguments is just too much.

    So, I bid you farewell. Pillory me all you want to in another comment. I no longer care and I won’t respond.

  • Dhoelscher

    “Look, if you bring up subjects like Euston Manifesto, then they become a
    point of discussion, even if it isn’t something that was in the
    original article.”

    I concede the point.

    However, you’ll recall that my reference to the EM was of the briefest sort. Yet, you have devoted several paragraphs to it here. If you wonder why that might be a little frustrating for a blogger, please consider the comment forum for this article. Look at what the commenters have written. What percentage of it is related to the main points made in my articles? Ten percent? Maybe less?

    Perhaps I ought to have expected that things would play out this way, that there would be little interest in a discussion of the issues I’ve raised.

    Perhaps I was naive, but that’s not what I expected.