MIchael Vick, Sam Harris, Hitler and Harvey

Sometimes, being rational is exhausting.

Sam Harris was on Bill Maher about three weeks ago.  In kicking off the interview, Bill offhandedly said something to the effect of, "I don't have that many friends who are atheists.  I wish I did, but I don't...."

In my case, I actually do have a few atheists friends.  Then there's my wife, who recently called me "The Hitler of Atheism."

So here's the context.  I'd just watched Bill Maher.  I mentioned how much I love Sam Harris' books, and how I am in complete agreement with his assessment that the recent confirmation of Francis Collins as Director of the National Institutes of Health is cause for grave concern.  After all, Collins is one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States, and yet he is on-the-record as to his firm belief in totally unsupportable religious bullshit.  (Read Harris' NY Times op-ed, here.)

My wife was stymied.  Utter disconnect.  How in the world could I suggest this guy shouldn't have his job?  I talked Establishment Clause, I tried to lay out my case, talking about the complete incompatibility between the scientific method and religion.  No matter.  "You are so mad about this stuff.  You want to get rid of anyone who is religious.  You're like the Hitler of Atheism."

Sometimes it makes you just want to stop.  Reading.  Blogging.  Thinking.

To be clear: my wife is no zealot.  We don't go to church (nor do our kids.)  This is a completely secular house.  But my wife, like many, has a very broad notion of "spirituality," as in "there has to be a reason, there has to be more after death," etc. etc.  She's also, I should note, a wonderful woman who literally takes bugs outside rather than killing them.  Religious people, in her view, should be left to believe as they believe. Live and let live.

I, on the other hand, kill the bugs.  You get the idea.  Mad about religion-->kill bugs-->kill religious people.  I guess....

When you can't connect with an almost entirely rationale life-mate, well, what the fuck hope is there for rationalism?

Back to the bugs.  If bugs are so important to my wife, just imagine dogs.  We have three of the beasts (and two cats).  We adore our pets.  They are family members.  Still, in my view, they are dogs. Nothing--other than religion, of course--drives me more ape-shit than people who treat their dogs like people.  Yes, I am an atheist who values human life infinitely more than other species.  I would sacrifice every dog on the planet to save one baby's life.  (I can lay out that rationale, but I won't in this post.)

So somehow we got onto Michael Vick.  I think the guy is a douche-bag and I'm glad he got convicted and did his time.  Now that he's done that, though, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to play football.  My wife argues the "role model" thing.  I get that, but I don't think it holds water as social policy.  As compared to, oh, the importance of role models in fields like science....

So, Francis Collins should have his job; Michael Vick needs to seek other employment.  

As I alluded to earlier, sometimes this is just too tiring.  I feel like Jimmy Stewart's character in Harvey, in reverse; everyone but me sees the giant rabbit.  

Towards the end of the interview, Sam said to Maher, "Reason is bigger than atheism.  We have a problem of good ideas versus bad ideas.  The real double standard we suffer from is religious bad ideas can't be criticized with any energy."

Indeed. If you can't take on religious bad ideas in your own secular household, we have a long, long way to go .   

Comments

[John Morales]

Hm.

"Sometimes, being rational is exhausting.
[...]
Yes, I am an atheist who values human life infinitely more than other species. I would sacrifice every dog on the planet to save one baby's life. (I can lay out that rationale, but I won't in this post.)"

That doesn't seem rational to me.

I'm probably not the only one who would be interested in seeing your rationale justifying the wiping out of an entire species for the sake of prolonging the life of one individual in another species (which is hardly endangered!).

[Smoke]

Thanks for the comment.

I don't value all species equally (fairly obvious, I guess, from my original post.) Seems you do, however. Is your calculus simply one of which species is more or less endangered?

Domestic dogs are practically parasitic: they live off their human masters. They make Aunt Susie and little Joey happy, but what of it? What would be the environmental impact if domesticated dogs were to simply vanish? There would actually be a positive impact, as they disrupt every ecosystem they occupy.

Any individual human, on the other hand, has the potential to literally change the world. The remote possibility of preserving the next Einstein or DaVinci--or better yet, the next Shakespeare--is worth sacrificing every Fido or Finney or Snookums on the planet. It matters not how small the odds may be, because a chance is still a chance--as opposed to preserving the next dog, which forever and always will be but a dog.

I realize that aunt Susie and little Joey really really love their dogs, but big shit: they're just dogs. Let Soozers and Joe-joe become bee-keepers instead, and then we can puzzle over a real conundrum as to what's worth preserving....

[John Morales]

Thanks for the response, Smoke.

I guess my point is the degree of inequality you advocate - i.e. an that an *entire species( is not worth *an individual* human.

Presumably you extrapolate that to any other species ("Yes, I am an atheist who values human life infinitely more than other species."); I find this disturbing.

"I don't value all species equally (fairly obvious, I guess, from my original post.) Seems you do, however. Is your calculus simply one of which species is more or less endangered?"

Oh no, I'll definitely take a (generic) human over a great number of other creatures - but I'd think hard and long about one human over an entire species - and the species would likely come on top.

6.783+ billion humans on this world - and each one is worth more than any given species. Each one worth more, if I take you literally, than all other species lumped together!

I don't think dogmatic absolutism is a good basis for decision-making, and that is that to which I object in your post. It smacks of religious idealism.

PS I note you speak of "the next Einstein or DaVinci [...]" - but you could equally well speak of the next Mao Tse-tung or the next Hitler.
People who can change the world don't only include those who are beneficent; it's not a one-sided bet.

PPS Note I pointed out saving a baby extends its life (but it will die); losing a species is permanent (short of future technology). This is a long term qualitative difference in degree of outcome.

[Mercer]

I was in agreeance with most of what you had to say until you wrote about sacrificing every dog for the sake of one human. I don't think you've really thought that through, have you? I may be an atheist, but I love and respect every living thing equally. We all have our place on this mysterious planet, regardless of size and species.

While I'm here - perhaps someone can answer this: As well as being an atheist, I'm also a vegetarian (aspiring vegan). Why is it that the vast majority of Christians eat meat and contribute to the destruction of "Gods creation"? I've harmed nothing, and since I experienced the revelation that is vegetarianism many years ago, I've completely avoided "meat" and tried to (politely) dissuade others from doing so as well - without being an obnoxious, self righteous prick about it.

So, all in all, I live a pretty "righteous" life (like your wife, I remvoe insects from the hosue instead of killing them)... Yet Christians still claim moral superiority over me because I haven't been brainwashed into believing there's a big man in the sky?

[Smoke]

Mercer, thanks for reading and commenting. I genuinely appreciate it. You probably noticed that one of the other comments was on this point, too.

I guess at this point I'll admit I don't have an ironclad rationale that's going to satisfy folks of your view.

Just tonight, I watched my wife pick lice out of one of our daughter's hairs. (How did she get them? I dunno, but it happens in happy, middle-class America all the time, it seems.) Do you really love and respect lice? I don't. I could give a shit. I want them dead.

There's a sliding scale to be sure. Mammals with big brains, where there's documented evidence of advanced thinking and emotion, etc.--I value them a lot. A lot more than lice, or herpes or Lindsay Lohan (wait, she's a mammal...not sure about the brain, though...) But I'll stand by my original statement. I love dogs; and would sacrifice every last one to save a human baby at risk.

I hear you, though. I am eating less meat, becoming more aware of those things. But I absolutely don't love and respect every living thing equally. Not even close.

Maybe in a millenia or three, I'll look like a 1700s plantation owner subjugating "lesser species."

Or maybe everyone will still be buying lice shampoo and squeezing the little fuckers between their fingernails....