There’s a continues effort from some vegans to attribute Sam
Harris’s or Christopher Hitchens's views of not just religion, but everything
they say, to everybody who finds them inspirational, in other words if you
agree with something they say, you are automatically agreeing with everything
for which they stand for. It seems it doesn’t matter that you can agree with some
of the views, like views on religion and disagree with other things they say.
And it’s funny that vegans who find Chris Hedges
inspirational don’t get the same treatment. When they post Chris’s views, they don’t get attributed with everything he says to them. I can play that game. Am I to assume
that a vegans who post some Chris′s
views agree with non-veganism, because Chris is not vegan? What would happen
if someone says that? It would be an outcry. But yet again the same thing is
done to people who agree with some of Sam’s and Hitchens's views. Only difference is one is religious,
one is not.
It seems that only if you find some views of a non-religious
person inspirational, you are automatically agreeing with everything that persons
claim. But if you agree with some views of a religious person you are not automatically
agreeing with everything that person says. Can you spot the difference?
I don’t share Hitchens's views on war and violence. And I
can find his views on religion inspirational and not agree with his other
views. Not just disagree with his other views; I can easily reject those views,
the non-religious ones. Violence is not cause of huge number of problems and
violence won’t solve them.
This is a part of bigger problem. And problem is that
abolitionist approach is becoming a haven for religion and anti-science views. Science
is same as religion according to those people. It doesn’t matter that science
changes it′s views
when new evidences appear, but religion doesn’t, it just change it′s interpretations. And if
some religious person does something immoral, like kill a person, that’s not a
religion, it’s a fanaticism. But when he does something moral, that’s automatically
attributed to his religion. Why only good things done by religious person are attributed
to his religion, but not the bad things.
A claim that if you agree with some views of person, you
agree with all his views, is not based on evidences, but on personal resentment
towards rejection of religion.
Urosh:
ReplyDeleteYou have written a very confused and inaccurate essay.
First, rejecting Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins is not a matter of overemphasizing incidental or tangential matters that may be objectionable but that are not central to their work. On the contrary, central to the work of these three writers are shockingly reactionary views and a rather blatant attempt to try to put an intellectual face on the New World Order. Harris and Hitchens engage in outright Islamophobia. Dawkins' theory of the "moral Zeitgeist" is on a par with "Manifest Destiny."
Atheist Noam Chomsky, in talking about Harris and Hitchens, calls them "religious fanatics" who believe in the "religion of the state" in that they argue we have to defend the violence and atrocities of the state because it’s being done to ensure human progress and to achieve other wonderful consequences.
So to try to equate Hedges' non-veganism with the reactionary views of the New Atheists rather misses the point. If you took away the reactionary views of the New Atheists, you'd have nothing left as their cartoonish characterizations of religion, which, for the most part, focus on fundamentalism, serve only to bolster their right wing ideology and add little, if anything, to the literature about atheism. But I certainly do hope that Hedges, who is a marvelous writer with great insight on international matters, goes vegan.
Second, I never claimed in my essay on New Atheism (at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-atheism-and-animal-ethics-some-reflections/)that science and religion were the same although I agreed with the observations of Professor Feyerabend, who rejected the rationalist idea there are identifiable rules of scientific method that determine what science is "good" science, and with Professor Kuhn, who argued that paradigms cannot be proved true or false and that it is naive to view science as "Truth." Different paradigms represent different worldviews; different points of view.
But, more importantly, what I have said is that we cannot derive morality from science. The ethical naturalists tried that when they claimed that moral terms could be reduced to natural properties that could be observed and, at least in theory, measured. So we can define "good" in terms of what maximizes pleasure or well-being, etc. But, as G.E, Moore and others observed, we can still ask whether the thing that is maximized is morally good and that rather crushes the case for ethical naturalism. Anyway, the position that science or some "objective" notion of rationality can tell us all we need to know about morality is ludicrous but I suppose that if, like Harris, you think we can use science to "prove" that Islam is a "bad" religion, you don't grasp that point.
Third, I argued that rationality and science cannot tell us what morality is. We need something else. For me, that "something else" is moral realism. I am an intuitionist, actually. In any event, the notion that you need to be "religious" in order to be an abolitionist is ridiculous and no one I know has ever made that statement except for those who want to mischaracterize things that they are not able or willing to understand.
Fourth, if there is anything that can be characterized as a "bad direction," it is the attempt by some to connect animal rights with the reactionary intellectuals who say that science tells us that we should embrace the "war on terror."
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
First I welcome your insights. You haven’t refuted my main point that you can agree with some of views of a person and reject other views. I said in the post that I reject Sam’s and Hitchens’s views on violence and I see no reason to restate that further.
DeleteAre you saying that I cannot agree with your abolitionist theory who I find the best theory on animal rights and reject your other views on religion, "new atheism" etc.?
I wasn’t trying to equate Hedges' non-veganism with the reactionary views of the New Atheists, rather to point out inconsistency in treating people who agree with some views of let’s say Hitchens from people who agree with some views of Hedges' . In other words if I agree with some Hitchens's views that doesn’t automatically mean that I agree with everything he says. That inconsistent reasoning isn’t directed to people who agree with some Hedges' views.
I don’t make the same mistake with you and other vegans who agree with some Hedges' views. Because I know you don’t agree with non-veganism.
Some claim, not you that science and religion are the same. I didn’t take that from your blog post.
Science today cannot tell us what’s moral and what’s not, it hasn’t progress to the point where I say could do that. That doesn’t that it will do that. On this issue my position isn’t set.
Where did I make a statement that you need to be non-religious and abolitionist? Never.
I cannot connect animal rights with the reactionary intellectuals for several reasons. Those intellectuals are not vegans and have nothing or little to say about animal rights. So how will I connect them with veganism?
Correction. Science today cannot tell us what’s moral and what’s not, it hasn’t progress to the point where I say could do that. That doesn’t mean it will do that. On this issue my position isn’t set.
DeleteUrosh:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your responses:
First, you say: "You haven’t refuted my main point that you can agree with some of views of a person and reject other views."
My point was that if you take away the reactionary politics from Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, all you are left is is a simplistic set of observations about fundamentalism. There is not much there beyond attempting to provide the intellectual foundation for the "war on terror" and the neo-imperialism that these three authors support.
Second, you say: "Some claim, not you that science and religion are the same." I am glad that you recognize that I do not say science and religion are the same. I am not sure who you think does say that.
Third, you say: "Science today cannot tell us what’s moral and what’s not, it hasn’t progress to the point where I say could do that. That doesn’t that it will do that. On this issue my position isn’t set."
My point is that it does not matter to what degree science progresses, it will never be able to provide us with the "ought" statements of morality. I know that Harris thinks that "ought" statements that are meaningful are really identical with "is" statements about well being but I find his position here to be incoherent and indicative of his failure to understand metaethical theory.
Fourth, you ask: "Where did I make a statement that you need to be non-religious and abolitionist? Never." What you said was:
"The abolitionist approach is heading in a bad direction, it has and will drive some people away, people who are not religious." But I never said anywhere that you had to be religious or theistic to understand and accept the abolitionist approach.
Fifth, I really urge you and your colleagues to consider making very clear that you reject the reactionary and Islamophobic positions that are core to the views of the New Atheists. The fact that people who self-identify as "animal advocates" are promoting the work of these people will further alienate us from other political progressives.
Thanks for your thoughts and I have enjoyed our exchange.
Best wishes,
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
I disagree that if you take away the reactionary politics from Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, all you are left is a simplistic set of observations about what you call a fundamentalism.
DeleteThe abolitionist approach is heading in a bad direction because of atmosphere of intolerance to atheists. It doesn’t matter that you say that you don’t have to be religious or theistic to understand and accept the abolitionist approach. Because when we criticize religion we are automatically painted as promoters of violent views of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.
I reject any discrimination whatever it’s based on religion or absence of religion etc. and I said that many times.
And I enjoyed our exchange too.